[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 88 (Tuesday, July 7, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7565-S7573]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE RESTRUCTURING AND REFORM ACT OF 1998--
                           CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. LOTT. I now move to proceed to the conference report to accompany 
H.R. 2676, the IRS reform bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The report will be stated.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill, H.R. 
     2676, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their 
     respective Houses this report, signed by a majority of the 
     conferees.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of June 24, 1998.)
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, my reaction is, here we go again. Yet 
another piece of legislation laid down without any opportunity----
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, may we have order? I make a point of order 
the Senate is not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order. The minority 
leader has the right to be heard. The Senate will come to order.
  The minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the distinguished Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. President, I am very disappointed with the action just taken by 
my good friend, the majority leader. He has filed cloture on one of the 
most controversial, complex, far-reaching pieces of legal legislation 
that we will address in this decade. We have done this before, and it 
would seem to me that our colleagues would understand that when this 
happens, we are denying the very function of the U.S. Senate, the right 
of every Senator to offer amendments, the right to have a 
deliberative----
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.
  (Mr. ALLARD assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. DASCHLE. It is the right of all Senators to fulfill the functions 
of their responsibilities as U.S. Senators to offer amendments, to have 
a debate. For us to file cloture, for the Senate to file cloture on a 
bill of this import, without one speech, without one amendment, without 
any consideration, is absolutely reprehensible.
  I am very, very disappointed that the majority leader has seen fit to 
do it. I guess I would ask, What are they afraid of? What is it they 
don't want us to offer? What is it about the amendment process that 
worries our colleagues on the other side? What is it about not having a 
good debate that so appeals to them? Mr. President, I don't know.
  But I do know this. Senators on this side of the aisle will continue 
to fight for our rights to offer amendments, regardless of 
circumstance. There are many of our colleagues who may support this 
bill on final passage, and I respect their rights even though I 
disagree. I personally think this bill is as bad as all the others that 
have been proposed, and I hope that we have a good debate about how 
good or how bad this legislation truly is. But for us to start the 
debate by saying that there will be little or no debate, especially 
when it comes to our opportunity to offer amendments, precluding the 
very right of every Senator to be heard, precluding the opportunity for 
us to offer ways in which we think it could be improved.
  So we will have this debate over and over and over again. But on so 
many occasions now, our colleagues on the other side insist on denying 
the rights of every Senator to be heard. That doesn't have to happen. 
This is not the House of Representatives. This is not the most 
deliberative body in the world so long as we continue to utilize this 
practice. There is a time and a place for cloture, but that time and 
that place is not as soon as the bill is laid down. Many of us could 
have objected to the motion to proceed. We could have voted against 
going to the motion to proceed. We could have even filibustered the 
motion to proceed. We didn't do that. Why? Because, in good faith,

[[Page S7566]]

we felt it was important to get on to the bill. But now what do we 
have? Another in a continued pattern by our Republican colleagues to 
curtail debate, to curtail thoughtful consideration of a very important 
issue.
  I don't know of a more complicated bill that any one of us will have 
to address in this session of Congress than product liability. We could 
offer a pop quiz today, and I am sure many of our colleagues would 
probably fail simply because we are not familiar with all the 
ramifications of this issue. So for us, now, just at the beginning of 
the debate to say we don't want amendments, we are not even sure we 
want a lot of debate, we are just going to get this out of our way so 
we can move on to other things, that is not the way the Senate ought to 
work. That is not what we ought to be doing here.
  What goes around comes around. This issue is going to come around 
again and again and again. We will not be denied our rights.
  So I am just very hopeful that even many of our Republican colleagues 
who may have misgivings about this bill will join Democrats in 
defeating cloture when the occasion arises on Thursday.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I would be happy to yield to the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would simply ask the minority leader if 
he might draw any parallel or distinction between the way this bill is 
now being handled and other bills are handled, versus the tobacco 
legislation and the question of cloture on that?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I think the Senator from Massachusetts raises a very 
important point. Exactly. We have seen this in a series of different 
episodes over the course of the year. It is a dangerous precedent to be 
setting. It is a remarkable admission from the other side that they are 
unwilling to face the reality here, to face the opportunity to have a 
good debate on key votes having to do with improvement of the bill, 
having to do with different views on a bill. Just as we saw with 
tobacco.
  I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, am I correct that the Senator from South 
Dakota had offered an amendment to the appropriations bill on the 
Patients' Bill of Rights and that, if we had not had the majority 
leader's requests at this time, tonight we in this body would be 
debating the Patients' Bill of Rights? Am I correct?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Massachusetts raises a very important 
note here. It seems that our colleagues on the other side are reverting 
to two practices: One is to file cloture as soon as a bill is laid 
down. That is what they did in this case. That is what they did--what 
they did on the Coverdell bill. The other practice is to offer a bill, 
and as soon as we offer an amendment that is in disagreement with their 
larger scheme, they pull the bill. That is what happened to the Ag 
appropriations bill when we offered tobacco on Ag appropriations. That 
is what just happened on the VA-HUD bill.
  So it seems to me there are two actions taken by our Republican 
colleagues with some frequency here: File cloture, deny the colleagues 
the right to offer amendments because of cloture; or pull the bill and 
move on to something else and never come back. So the Senator from 
Massachusetts raises a very good point.
  Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will further yield, as I understand it 
now, as a result of the action of the majority leader, the Ag 
appropriations bill has returned to the calendar and the VA-HUD 
appropriations bill has returned to the calendar. So it appears, would 
the Senator not agree with me, that it is not the Democrats who are 
holding up the appropriations process and procedure--we were prepared 
to move ahead--but evidently it is the majority leader who has sent 
these matters back to the calendar when it is our responsibility to go 
forward?
  I am just wondering if the leader can tell us whether he has had any 
opportunity to talk to the majority leader about when we will have an 
opportunity to at least have discussion or debate on the measures that 
evidently are objectionable to the majority leader? Are we going to 
have any opportunity to debate these measures, or are we going to be 
required to continue this charade and continue to try to offer these 
amendments on other appropriations as well?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Unfortunately, I have to report to the Senator from 
Massachusetts that there doesn't appear to be any end in sight to this 
gagging of Democrats, to this notion that you either proceed on our 
terms or we won't proceed at all.
  As the Senator from Massachusetts just noted, we are no longer in a 
position where the regular order is to go back to an appropriations 
bill. They have been shelved. They have been put back on the calendar. 
Now, we have to move to a motion to proceed to bring the bills back, 
where at least before we had the bills as the regular order should we 
fail to reach any kind of an agreement on how to proceed on a current 
bill.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Just finally, and I thank the Senator, does he find it 
somewhat ironic that the Republican leadership is effectively gagging 
the Senate from debating rules on HMOs which are gagging doctors from 
giving the best health care advice? That we are being gagged here on 
the floor of the U.S. Senate, so to speak, as well, by Republican 
leadership who have refused to permit a debate on this issue? There is 
a certain irony in that.
  Mr. DASCHLE. That is the irony, I would say to the Senator from 
Massachusetts. And the real sad thing is that this goes beyond the 
bill. This goes to the fact that 3,000 kids a day start smoking. It 
goes to the tremendous number of victims of managed care abuses all 
over this country, in every State of the Union, who have said if you do 
anything in Congress this year, we want you to fix managed care. We 
don't want you to wait until we lose more people. We want you to solve 
this problem this year. And that is what we are trying to do. We have 
10 weeks to go, fewer than 40 legislative days. If we don't do it now, 
when are we going to do it?

  The Senator from Massachusetts makes a very important point. I yield 
to the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if the Democratic leader can yield for a 
question, I ask the Senator from South Dakota--and I am looking around 
the floor, and I see a number of Senators on the floor. I see only two 
who have served here longer than I. I ask my question in the form of 
that context.
  In the 24 years I have been here, Democrats have been twice in the 
majority, twice in the minority. Thus, the Republicans twice in the 
minority and twice in the majority. Would it not be the experience of 
the Senator from South Dakota, as it has been mine, that no matter 
which party was in the majority, the Senate and the Senate rules and 
those who have led the Senate have always reflected the need of the 
Senate rules to protect both sides, both the majority and the minority, 
so that the United States of America would know that there was a full 
debate on real issues where all voices were heard, not just the voice 
maybe of temporarily the majority, but all voices would be heard?
  And would it not be the experience of the Senator from South Dakota 
that this procedure, something I have not seen in my 24 years here, 
this procedure is said to make sure there will not be a vote where all 
Americans are heard, will make sure there is not a debate where all 
Americans are heard, but will be done in such a way that only one 
segment of our country will be heard? Will that not be the experience 
of the Senator from South Dakota?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Vermont speaks with a wealth of 
experience that goes well beyond what this Senator has had in his 12 
years in the Senate. But like him, I have not seen this practice used 
with the frequency and the amazing degree of persistence demonstrated 
by the majority leader to cut off debate, to gag the Senate, to stop an 
open opportunity for us to debate key issues, complicated issues such 
as this.
  The Senator is right, this experience is one that I think really 
bears a great deal of explanation to the American people. Why on key 
issue after issue--why on education, why on tobacco, why on all these 
issues that we face this year--does the Senate majority persist in 
precluding a good opportunity to have the kind of debate the American

[[Page S7567]]

people expect and want and need. The Senator from Vermont is absolutely 
right.
  This is not the Senate's brightest moment. This is a very, very 
disappointing episode in what has been a pattern all year long, and it 
is disappointing not only to us but the American people. I yield to the 
Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I say to the Senator, I agree completely with his 
comments.
  If the Members of the U.S. Senate serving in the 2d session of the 
105th Congress were charged in court with having passed meaningful 
legislation to help America, I am afraid there is not enough evidence 
to convict us, because if you look at what we have been about over the 
last several months, with the exception of renaming Washington National 
Airport, we have little to show for the time we have spent in 
Washington and only 10 weeks to go.
  The Senator is so correct, the President, in his State of the Union 
Address, challenged this Congress, leaders on both sides of the aisle, 
to address the issues America really cares about: Saving Social 
Security, campaign finance reform, tobacco legislation, education, 
child care, doing the things that American families would really 
applaud, responding to their needs.
  Yet, we stand here today in the first week of July and we hear, 
again, an effort by the majority leader to not only stop the train in 
an effort to stop legislation moving forward, but to stop the debate in 
what is supposed to be the world's greatest deliberative body.
  It is a disappointment to me, and I think to a lot of people who are 
following this session of the U.S. Senate, that we are back here this 
week and not about the business that people really care about across 
America.
  I stand in support of what our leader, Senator Daschle, said, that it 
is a deprivation of our responsibility as U.S. Senators representing 
States across this country and as representing families who expect us 
to respond to these needs, when you think of the opportunities we have 
already missed--the campaign finance reform bill killed on the floor of 
the Senate by the Republican leadership, and then we turned around with 
an opportunity to protect millions of our children from tobacco 
addiction, killed on the floor of the U.S. Senate by the Republican 
leadership time and time again.
  Here is an effort by the Democrats to bring out legislation to 
protect families and patients who go to their doctors wanting the very 
best in medical care and find themselves twisted in knots by the 
insurance industry and, once again, efforts on the Republican side to 
stop us.
  I am afraid that when all is said and done this will turn out to be 
one of the worst Congresses in this century in terms of its 
productivity. And if we are to be measured by our productivity, I am 
not sure that many Senators can collect their paychecks and talk about 
their pensions based on what we have been able to do or failed to do in 
the last few months.
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Illinois is absolutely right.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will suspend, I remind Senators 
on the floor that they must pose a question----
  Mr. DURBIN. Does the Senator agree?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. And then the speaker who has the floor will 
yield. Otherwise, I request they go through the Chair.
  The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Chair for the clarification. Let me just 
say, the Senator from Illinois is absolutely right, he was asking if I 
agreed with his characterization of the way this Senate has performed.
  Sometime this year, our Republican colleagues will be asked, ``Tell 
us what you did on tobacco.'' They will say nothing.
  Our Republican colleagues will be asked, ``Tell us what you did on 
campaign reform.'' Our colleagues will say nothing.
  Our Republican colleagues will be asked, ``Well, tell us what you did 
on education; what did you do to build infrastructure; what did you do 
to reduce class size?'' And our Republican colleagues will have to say 
nothing.
  Our Republican colleagues are going to be asked, ``Well, tell us what 
did you do, then, on trying to address one of the most important health 
care questions our country is facing today in managed care?'' And, 
again, our Republican colleagues will say nothing.
  Mr. President, the list continues to grow. Why? Because they appear 
to be afraid of a debate, appear to be afraid to take this issue to its 
successful conclusion. If we don't go along, we don't do anything on 
that particular issue. That isn't the way this Senate is supposed to 
perform.
  I yield to the Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I inquire of the distinguished Democratic 
leader if he is not aware of what the effect of this cloture motion may 
be on the product liability legislation? I raise that question of the 
Democratic leader because I am a cosponsor of this bill. I am one of a 
handful of Democrats who have supported the work of my good friend, 
Senator Gorton from the State of Washington, and Senator Jay 
Rockefeller, our colleague from West Virginia, who are the lead 
sponsors of this legislation.
  I raise the point with the Democratic leader; I go back to the days 
of Jack Danforth and working on a proposal some 10 years ago on product 
liability legislation, tort reform. As someone who authored, along with 
Senator Domenici, the securities litigation reform bill and uniform 
standards, I am very interested in seeing us get a bill done here. We 
have indications the White House is going to be supportive of this 
legislation. For the first time, we might be able to do something about 
this issue.
  I am inclined to agree with the managers and principal authors of 
this bill that we probably ought to keep this bill pretty clean. So I 
am sympathetic to that notion.
  But I cannot imagine at this point filing cloture on this bill. I 
disagree with the majority of my colleagues on this side who disagree 
with this bill, but I will fight with every power in me as a Member of 
this body to see to it that any Member has a right to raise amendments 
about this bill.
  I may vote against all the amendments, but if we reach a point here, 
Mr. President--and I say this to ask a question of the Democratic 
leader--if we reach the level where we end up becoming sort of a mirror 
image of the House, the other body, where we deprive the minority, as 
the rules of the House allow, to cut off debate where the will of the 
majority prevails, then we turn this institution into nothing more than 
a mirror image of the institution down the hall. But in this body it is 
something different. Here, the rights of the minority are to be 
protected. And so the right to offer amendments, to be heard, is 
sacrosanct when dealing with the U.S. Senate.

  So it is with a deep sense of regret that I inform my colleagues, who 
have worked hard on this bill, that I will oppose a cloture motion. I 
hope other Democrats who support this bill will do likewise, so that we 
can get back to the business of debating this bill, take the day or 2 
that it needs to be debated here, let the amendments be offered, let us 
defeat them if we have a majority here, and get about the business of 
passing this legislation so that this Congress might deal with product 
liability legislation.
  I raise that, Mr. President, in the form of a question to my 
colleague, the Democratic leader, because I am saddened by this. Why 
are we filing cloture on this bill? We are coming this close to, for 
the first time, dealing with tort reform, really dealing with this 
issue, not in as comprehensive a way as some would like, but a real 
chance for the first time ever. And you are taking people like me who 
support this bill and asking me to vote in a way that would disallow my 
colleagues from offering amendments on this legislation and thereby 
killing this bill. It will destroy this bill on tort reform over this 
procedure.
  So I raise the question to the Democratic leader, if in fact it is 
not unwittingly maybe what the majority leader, who has offered the 
cloture motion, is achieving by forcing those of us who support this 
bill to oppose a cloture motion and then depriving us of legislation 
being heard and fully debated?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Well, the Senator from Connecticut has demonstrated his 
characteristic eloquence again. I would answer in the affirmative. I do 
not

[[Page S7568]]

know what motivation there may have been on the part of the majority 
leader, but I must say this, that it complicates dramatically the 
position of those who support this legislation, complicates it 
dramatically. As the Senator from Connecticut correctly points out, it 
could actually kill the very bill they are trying to pass.
  Now, for those of us who want to protect Senators' rights, we are 
surprised and I guess somewhat amazed at the actions just taken by the 
majority. Keep in mind, if we pass cloture, all relevant amendments 
will be barred. And yet our Republican colleagues have already laid an 
amendment down, an amendment, I might add, that nobody has seen. You 
talk about a legislative pig in a poke; there isn't a Senator on this 
side, maybe with one exception, who has seen the amendment just laid 
down by the majority leader--not one, with one exception perhaps. I 
have not talked to Senator Rockefeller.
  So I am astounded that our Republican colleagues would say, ``We want 
our amendments, but we don't want you to have any. We're going to pass 
our amendment, but on the chance that you could pass one of yours, 
we're going to preclude them all.''
  Mr. President, the Senate cannot work that way. As the Senator from 
Connecticut just pointed out, we are acting more and more like the 
House of Representatives. If any one of our colleagues wishes to run, 
let them declare their candidacy. There are all kinds of open seats, 
uncontested seats, on the other side. Go run. But if you want to be a 
U.S. Senator, live up to the responsibilities of the U.S. Senate. This 
is supposed to be the greatest deliberative body in the world.
  How deliberative can we be when, vote after vote, amendment after 
amendment, bill after bill, this side is precluded from offering 
amendments either because the majority leader pulls the bill or they 
file cloture immediately upon filing? That cannot work, Mr. President.
  So I appreciate the wisdom of the Senator from Connecticut, and I 
must say the courage, because clearly there could be Senators who 
misinterpret, were it not for his eloquent explanation just now, why he 
is going to work to protect Senators' rights.
  I must say, there will be Senators on the other side who will want 
their rights protected at some point. Majority or minority, it does not 
matter, it happens to all of us.
  So I appreciate the position taken by the Senator from Connecticut. I 
hope all of our colleagues have heard his explanation and his reasons. 
And I hope a lot of our Republican colleagues will join us. Cloture 
must be defeated. We must protect Senators' rights, and we must protect 
the institution of the U.S. Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this Senator is puzzled, truly puzzled, by 
the remarks which he has just had the privilege of hearing. The 
minority leader protests that we cannot have a debate on product 
liability because cloture has been filed on this substitute amendment. 
He is joined by one of the supporters of the bill, the senior Senator 
from Connecticut, who evidently wants a debate on product liability.
  But it is overwhelmingly evident from the remarks of the Senator from 
Massachusetts, the Senator from Illinois, and the responses to those 
remarks on the part of the minority leader, that they do not have the 
slightest interest in a debate on product liability--not the slightest 
interest in a debate on product liability.
  They want a debate on their agenda. And they want a debate on their 
agenda whether it has already occupied weeks of the Senate's time or 
not, whether they have already been offered a debate on that agenda or 
not in a reasonable time, at which they could be taken up as individual 
matters.
  No. The net result, Mr. President, of the remarks of the minority 
leader is that they wish the right, at any time and under any set of 
circumstances, to set the agenda of the Senate, the subject matter that 
the Senate will be debating, and they want to engage in that agenda not 
once, not twice, but on an unlimited basis whenever they wish to bring 
it up.
  The Senator from Illinois implied, at least, that he wanted another 
debate on what he calls ``campaign reform,'' on a proposal blatantly 
unconstitutional, a proposal clearly violating the free speech 
guarantees in the first amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States, a debate which the Senate had for more than 2 weeks and a 
debate which the Senator from Illinois and the minority leader lost--
lost only after threatening a filibuster themselves against any 
campaign reform advocated by a majority of the Members on this side, 
campaign reforms based on seeing to it that individuals did not have to 
contribute to campaigns with which they did not agree, campaign reform 
based on bringing light into the source of the kind of money that so 
devastated and discredited the Presidential election of 1996.
  Then the Senator from Illinois, and I believe the Senator from 
Massachusetts, spoke about tobacco legislation. Tobacco legislation, 
Mr. President? Does my memory fail me? Did we not debate tobacco 
legislation for the better part of 4 weeks on a bill relating to 
tobacco? I believe that we did. And I believe that the positions taken 
by most of the Members on the other side of the aisle ended up 
unsuccessful. And so what have we had since then? Four weeks is not 
enough?
  Immediately thereafter, they attempted to redebate tobacco on another 
issue important to the people of the United States. They have now 
destroyed the debate on a bill for the support of the Department of 
Agriculture and all of our agricultural across the United States by 
insisting that we can't debate agriculture for 2 days and pass a bill 
without having another 4, 6 or 8 weeks on their tobacco agenda.
  The Senator from Illinois says that nothing was done with respect to 
education. I seem to remember at least a week, maybe 2 weeks, debating 
the subject of reform of education in the United States. In fact, I 
believe it was just 2 weeks ago that we passed a bill on that subject 
and sent it to the President who has determined that he will veto. This 
Senator proposed to this body a true reform in the way in which we deal 
with education, one that would have trusted our State education 
officials, our local education officials, our teachers and our parents 
to make decisions about the education of their children without the 
constant interference of bureaucrats in Washington, DC, who impose more 
than half of the rules regulating the conduct in our schools, while 
coming up with 7 or 8 percent of the money. Not a single Member on that 
side of the aisle was willing to vote for that proposal, and they said 
the entire education reform bill would be filibustered to death if it 
were included in any bill sent to the President of the United States.
  Oh, no, Mr. President, we have debated education reform. We have 
passed in this body true education reform. I don't think at this point 
that there is much point in going over it again.
  Here today we were debating a vitally important appropriations bill 
for veterans, for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. We 
had a thoughtful debate, dividing both parties on the space station. We 
were about to debate mortgage limitations and do the business of the 
Senate when the minority leader says, oh, no; we are not going to let 
the majority of the Appropriations Committee go through an 
appropriations bill. We will debate our proposal for health care 
changes, and we will do it right now.
  Now, he did that in spite of the fact that when I was sitting in your 
seat as the acting President of the Senate, the majority leader 3 weeks 
ago came down here and offered a full opportunity to the minority to 
debate their health care proposals together with our health care 
proposals and to have direct votes on those proposals before the end of 
this month of July 1998. That offer was totally rejected by the very 
people who now demand we engage in that debate today as a part of an 
important bill on a totally and completely different subject.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GORTON. No, the Senator will not yield. The Senator will not 
yield.
  So this Senate has debated a change in our campaign reform laws. It 
has debated education reform and passed a bill on the subject. It has 
debated tobacco legislation. And it is more than

[[Page S7569]]

willing and will debate health care legislation with the proposals of 
both parties considered in that connection.
  But no majority party, no majority leader, has ever permitted a set 
of circumstances under which the minority not only determines the 
agenda, but when the agenda is to be debated and how many times it is 
to be debated, even though that prevents a debate on vitally important 
appropriations bills for the conduct of the government, and in this 
case a debate on an important product liability bill. As the manager of 
that bill, had the minority leader said we would like to do what we did 
just 2 years ago and have a debate and several amendments about product 
liability, the way that the senior Senator from Connecticut was 
speaking about the subject a few moments ago, I have no doubt that that 
desire would be granted. I have no doubt that proposed changes in the 
substitute bill that is now before the Senate would have been debated. 
I think those proposed changes would have been defeated.
  Two years ago this Congress did spend, I think, a full week or more 
on a much broader and more all-encompassing product liability bill. It 
was debated then by the minority party as a product liability bill 
without the attempt to move on to a totally and completely unrelated 
subject. It was passed. It was sent to the President of the United 
States for reasons that this Senator did not consider to be 
particularly persuasive. The President of the United States vetoed that 
bill.
  Then the junior Senator from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, and 
I worked diligently for almost 2 years in coming up with a bill to be 
proposed here on that subject with which the President of the United 
States would agree and with which the President of the United States 
does agree. We are now told that an attempt actually to debate that 
subject and to vote on this bill is somehow or another an infringement 
on the rights of the minority party.
  I heard during the course of the last week over this, the minority 
party does want one change in the bill on product liability having to 
do with guns. That amendment, I am informed by the Parliamentarian, 
will be germane after cloture. It can be debated and it can be voted 
upon. For all practical purposes, any limitation of an already modest 
bill on product liability can be debated and voted upon after cloture. 
It is difficult to persuade this Senator that anyone on this side of 
the aisle wants to expand this product liability bill and cause it to 
cover a greater field related to product liability than it does at the 
present time.
  That was the pretense set forth in the initial remarks of the 
minority leader, that he wishes a fuller and more complete debate on 
product liability. But that pretense was shattered instantly by the 
Senators who asked him to yield to questions and simply stated, and I 
repeat it again, that they wanted to debate subjects totally unrelated 
to product liability. Three of the four subjects they mentioned have 
already been debated at length on the floor of this Senate and 
decided--decided in a way they don't like--but decided pursuant to the 
rules of the Senate of the United States.
  The fourth will clearly be debated, will be debated on its own 
merits, and will be debated at a time at which both the members of the 
minority party and the members of the majority party can set forth 
their proposals and have the merits of their proposal both fully 
debated and determined and decided under the rules of the Senate.
  This artificial fury that we have listened to here for most of the 
last hour is directed partly at party politics and partly as a highly 
skillful way of destroying a product liability bill to which the 
President of the United States, the leader of their party, has agreed. 
It may well be successful. The Senator from Connecticut is right if he 
refuses to support a bill that he has supported through his entire 
career because it won't also carry debates on campaign laws, health 
care, education, and tobacco, then unfortunately all of the work of 
which he was a part, and the Senator from West Virginia was a part, and 
many of us were a part of on this side, and the President of the United 
States was a part, may be wasted.
  I think that may very well be the goal of those who engage in this 
artificial outrage about whether or not we should deal with product 
liability for a few days and debate that issue, finish it, have a vote 
on it, finish our appropriations bills, have votes on each of them, and 
deal with a health care debate before the end of this month. That only 
is the desire of the majority leader in the normal management of the 
Senate, just as it was the desire under identical circumstances when 
the majority leader was on the other side of the aisle.
  It is probably a more open debate on issues of interest to the 
minority than I could remember during the course of Congresses in which 
my party was in the minority. But this rhetoric this afternoon here has 
little, if anything, to do with product liability, or a debate on this 
product liability bill, or attempts to improve or to amend this product 
liability bill with product liability provisions. It has to do with the 
demand of the minority leader that he determine not only the agenda, 
not only the subjects that the Senate will debate, but the length of 
time that debate will take, the number of times the debates on 
particular subjects will be taken.
  The Senate cannot operate under those sets of circumstances. It ought 
not to operate under those circumstances. I have little hope for those 
who simply oppose any legal reform whatsoever, even when the President 
has agreed to it. I do hope that those who believe in product 
liability, those who were on the other side on each of the three issues 
that have already been debated, and those who will have the opportunity 
to debate health care when they wish to do so, will have the courage to 
see to it that we are able to debate this product liability bill and 
reach a conclusion on it in a reasonable period of time, so that we can 
go on to other subjects that are of importance to the Senate and to the 
American people.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment my colleague. I am 
disappointed in the minority leader's statement, and also its tone. A 
lot of us came back from the one-week break for the Fourth of July and 
said we have work to do, we have appropriations bills to pass, we have 
product liability reform bill to pass, we have the IRS reform bill. And 
then somebody says this is an unbelievable procedure. No, it is not. We 
are moving to a conference report. That has priority under the rules of 
the Senate. We are moving to a conference report on a bill that already 
passed the House and the Senate, and, hopefully, the President will 
sign it. I think it may be one of the most notable and significant 
achievements of this Congress.
  Then our colleagues say, wait a minute, you are denying us an 
opportunity to offer an amendment. I disagree. The Senator from 
Arkansas had an amendment on the space station that lasted most of the 
afternoon. We were clearly willing to take amendments. We had an 
amendment that Senator Kohl from Wisconsin and I were going to offer 
dealing with FHA. That was bipartisan. We were trying to do the 
Senate's work. As a matter of fact, the Senate was planning on staying 
on the VA appropriations bill so we could finish tonight, tomorrow, or 
the next day, to do our work. The minority leader tried to place an 
amendment--or did file an amendment called the Patients' Bill of Rights 
on the appropriations bill. He has a right to do so, but he knows it is 
not the time or place to do it.
  For the information of our colleagues and the viewing public, the 
majority leader has already said we will take up the so-called issue 
dealing with health care and the regulation of managed care, with the 
very nice title of ``The Patients' Bill of Rights.'' We will take it up 
this month. But in the meantime, let's finish our work, let's pass the 
IRS reform bill, let's pass appropriations bills.
  We are willing to have a decent amount of time on the so-called 
Patients' Bill of Rights this month and to consider alternatives. The 
Senator from Massachusetts has an alternative. I am working on an 
alternative. I may have a couple of other ideas. And we are willing to 
consider relevant amendments. I think it is a mistake to do it

[[Page S7570]]

all month. Maybe some want to. Maybe they think there is political 
fodder to be gained. Some of us know we have some work to do. That is 
our intention.
  The majority leader made it clear that we have work to do. We are 
going to be voting on Mondays and Fridays. We should be passing bills. 
We have only passed 2 appropriations bills; we have 13 to do. The House 
passed five, and next week they will probably pass another five. We 
are, in the meantime, hoping to get two bills done this week. 
Unfortunately, instead, the minority said we need to put the Patients' 
Bill of Rights on one and then the smoking bill--even though we have 
spent 4 weeks on the tobacco bill. Maybe if they came up with a better 
alternative, we could pass a bill. But they came up with one that would 
cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and I think we rightfully 
rejected it.
  They said, ``We don't have an opportunity to debate our issues.'' 
They had 4 weeks on the so-called tobacco bill. Campaign finance reform 
has been in the Senate on numerous occasions, including this Congress. 
We insisted on having one amendment that said campaign contributions 
would be voluntary. Most of our colleagues on the Democrat side said, 
``No, no, we can't have voluntary campaign contributions. That would be 
unheard of. We can't have that kind of reform.''

  One of our colleagues said that the Senate can't work this way. 
Really, what they are trying to say is, ``We want to have product 
liability reform on the floor, and we want to dump our entire Democrat 
agenda on,'' half of which they tried and could not get passed 
previously. They want to dump it on this bill or on the appropriations 
bills, and they will keep trying until maybe something will stick.
  And then they said, ``Wait a minute, if you file cloture''--cloture, 
for the information of people not aware of the Senate rules, it would 
eliminate a lot of extraneous amendments. They are acting like that 
hasn't happened before. George Mitchell, as majority leader, was the 
instigator of the quick-draw cloture motion. He would file cloture so 
fast, it would make your head spin. He did it time and time again. I 
don't like cloture. I think it happens to be too restrictive.
  The Senator from Washington, who was managing the bill, has said we 
are perfectly willing to work with colleagues if they have amendments 
they want to discuss on product liability. We can work that up and come 
up with an agreement. Obviously, our colleagues on the minority side 
said, ``No. We want to put our whole agenda on. We want another debate 
on tobacco and the Patients' Bill of Rights, and debate on schools or 
education''--you name it. They want to put everything on there except 
product liability.
  In other words, they don't really want product liability. They have 
that right, but we also have a right to try to get the Senate's 
business done. So we are going to pass the conference report on IRS 
reform. We are going to take that up tomorrow. Again, I hope all of my 
colleagues will support that. We are going to have a vote on cloture on 
product liability reform. If colleagues are really interested in having 
legitimate amendments dealing with that issue, they could make a 
proposal and we could probably work that out--if we keep the amendments 
relevant. Are we going to say you can dump your entire agenda on it? 
No. At least it is my hope that we don't do that. That is the reason we 
have cloture--to keep amendments germane, finish our work, and be done 
with it.
  So I am disappointed in the rhetoric and the tone that we heard 
tonight. I hope we will come back and say, wait a minute, we only have 
4 weeks this month and a few weeks in September--all of the month of 
September, and maybe part of October to finish the Senate's business. 
We have to pass a lot of appropriations bills. I still hope we will get 
a budget. I hope we will pass tax relief. So we have some significant 
reform that needs to happen, and we need to do the work of the Senate.
  I notice my friend from Massachusetts on the floor. He has a bill 
called the Patients' Bill of Rights. I am perfectly willing to debate 
that issue. We are willing to spend some time on that issue and give 
colleagues a vote on the Democrat proposal, which has been recently 
introduced--I guess today--on the VA-HUD appropriations bill. It 
doesn't belong on an appropriations bill. There is a point of order. 
That is legislation on an appropriations bill. That is the reason we 
have the rule. It does not belong there. The majority leader said we 
will take it up sometime this month, and with some amendments dealing 
with that issue, relevant health care amendments.

  If our colleagues are just interested in rhetorical flourishes and 
maybe campaign issues, they can make that attempt. But that won't 
legislate. That won't change the law. If they are interested in 
changing the law, I urge them to work with us. Let's come up with an 
agreement where we can bring the issue up, have an adequate amount of 
debate on the so-called Patients' Bill of Rights, and have different 
alternatives considered and voted on.
  I make that point. This side is willing. We had a significant debate 
on tobacco. We are willing to have a debate on the so-called Patients' 
Bill of Rights. We have had debate on campaign reform. We have had 
debate on education. Now we have to finish the appropriations bills. We 
have to do the work of the Senate. It is going to take both sides 
working together to make that happen.
  I hope we will have greater cooperation exhibited in the future for 
the Senate to really get its work done in a timely, efficient, and 
productive manner.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am encouraged certainly by the comments 
of the acting floor leader now that he says we will have an opportunity 
to debate the issues on the Patients' Bill of Rights. We look forward 
to that opportunity. But I will just take a few moments of the Senate's 
time--I will not take a great deal of time--to really correct the 
Record.
  As the Senator from Oklahoma remembers, and should remember very 
clearly, the U.S. Senate overturned in 1995 the longstanding rule that 
we would not have legislation on appropriations. And it was the 
Republican Party that overturned that concept. Every single Republican, 
including the Senator from Oklahoma, voted to overturn the ruling of 
the chair and allow legislation on appropriations. So, now we have 
legislation on appropriations. I think it is regrettable, and should 
the Republican leader want to alter and change that, I think he would 
find that there would be strong support for that.
  But, Mr. President, I want to get back and talk for just a moment or 
two about what the issues really are. We have just listened to our 
friends from the States of Washington and Oklahoma speak on the floor 
about what cannot be done, or what should not be done.
  Earlier this afternoon, in a time-honored process and procedure, the 
minority leader, Senator Daschle, sent to the desk of the U.S. Senate 
an amendment to provide for a Patients' Bill of Rights, a recognition 
that in this country too often those who are making health care 
decisions are actually insurance company accountants rather than 
doctors. Too often the doctors, who represent the best interests of the 
patients, are caught in this extraordinary dilemma and understand that 
they are put between a rock and a hard place. Too often in our country 
we find that managed care is mismanaged care. And we have heard 
examples of this on the Senate floor time and time again over the 
period of these past weeks. I dare say that we have had few days that 
have gone by when Senators have not spoken about particular tragedies 
that have been experienced in their States.
  Senator Daschle's amendment should have allowed the Senate to debate 
the issue of the Patients' Bill of Rights, debate it this afternoon, 
debate it this evening, debate it tomorrow, but debate it and reach 
some kind of a conclusion on the issue. The President has spoken. He 
spoke as recently as this afternoon in support of the legislation that 
was included in Senator Daschle's proposal.
  That is what this is about. We have that opportunity to debate 
managed care reform. The Democratic leader offered the Patients' Bill 
of Rights. It is an issue that Republicans and Democrats across the 
country want us to do

[[Page S7571]]

something about. We are being denied that opportunity because the 
majority leader pulled the bill down and put it back on the calendar, 
as was his wont to do, and we are again denied the opportunity to 
debate this critically important issue.
  So our efforts to move toward that debate have been temporarily 
deferred--deferred perhaps for a day or two, but certainly not longer 
than a day or two. We are going to come back to that issue and keep 
coming back. And our friends on the majority side better get used to 
it. They may get into a situation where they are going to put 
appropriations bill after appropriations bill after appropriations bill 
back on the calendar because the Senate will want to debate a Patients' 
Bill of Rights, and the Republican Leadership will want to continue to 
deny us that opportunity. Mr. President, we will continue to demand 
debate because the American people are demanding it.
  You can say, Why are we in this kind of a situation? Why aren't we 
following a regular order, the procedure that everyone learns in civics 
class and in their study of American history, that says when 
legislation is introduced, it goes to the committee, the committee 
marks it up, it comes to the floor, it is acted upon on the floor, the 
two bodies get together in a conference, and, if they agree, they send 
it to the President of the United States?
  The reason the Senator from South Dakota offered the amendment is 
because we could not get a markup and we could not get a hearing in the 
appropriate committee. We were denied that opportunity--denied it, 
turned down, thumbs down to the Senators who supported that 
legislation. No, you can't have a hearing on that legislation in our 
committee. The Republicans told those of us on the Labor and Human 
Resources Committee that not only can't you have that hearing, but, if 
you introduce the legislation, we will not give you a markup on it. We 
will not let you have a debate in the committee. We are going to 
obstruct the whole committee process so you will not be able to advance 
your issues, and the issues of the American people.
  I did not hear that talked about by the Senator from Washington. I 
did not hear that talked about from the Senator from Oklahoma. The 
majority leader has put forward several lists of his priorities for the 
session, and the Patients' Bill of Rights is not on any one of them--
not on any one of them. The Republican leadership wants to stonewall--
stonewall on this issue, which is of such great importance to families 
all across the country. That is why the Democratic leader offered this 
amendment, because the Republican leadership is trying to stonewall it.
  So, Mr. President, are we going to say--those of us who favor patient 
protection legislation--that we are going to be denied consideration of 
the committee, we are going to be denied a markup in the committee, and 
we are going to be denied floor debate by the majority leader and the 
Republican leadership, that we are not even going to consider this 
issue in the U.S. Senate?
  No. That is not the kind of U.S. Senate that our Founding Fathers 
intended, nor has today been one of our best and greatest days. But we 
are going to debate this issue, and we are going to act on it. Make no 
mistake about it.
  And we are going to come right back after that and consider an 
increase in the minimum wage. Our Republican friends better hear that 
as well. We can't get the markup on the increase in the minimum wage 
for workers in this country--workers who have not benefited by the 
extraordinary explosion of the stock markets and the extraordinary 
increase in the accumulation of wealth. These are men and women who are 
working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the year, primarily single women, 
primarily women who are heads of households with children. This is a 
women's issue. It is a children's issue. It is a fairness issue. And we 
are going to consider it this year. We know Republican leaders are 
opposed to that.
  What else is new? They were opposed to it last time. And we were able 
to be successful. It wasn't on the Republican agenda the last time we 
saw an increase in the minimum wage. The increase in the minimum wage 
has never been on the Republican agenda. Yet we have been successful in 
doing so. And we will be successful in doing so this time.
  So that is why we find ourselves where we do this evening. And here 
the Democratic leader offers our amendment, makes a brief comment--a 
brief comment--about it. And then, bingo, the bill is pulled. Now we 
hear from the Republican leadership that, Oh, well, you objected to a 
consent agreement that could get this proposal before the Senate and to 
act on it.
  I would love to take the time of the Senate to go through this, but 
let me just include the appropriate parts of this proposal. Let me just 
mention a very interesting aspect of the consent agreement, to which 
the Senator from Washington referred. I asked him to yield so we could 
go through this agreement together. He refused the opportunity to do 
so. I can understand why, too. I might have wanted to do the same if I 
had to defend this proposed agreement. This is what was included in the 
agreement. And I will include the whole agreement. But let me read a 
section:

       I ask unanimous consent that the Chair not entertain a 
     motion to adjourn or recess for the August recess prior to a 
     vote on or in relation to the majority leader's bill and the 
     minority leader's amendment.

  And that following those votes:

       It be in order for the majority leader--

  Listen to this--

     to return the legislation to the calendar.

  ``Return the legislation to the calendar.''
  And the Senator from Washington has the audacity to say on the floor 
of the Senate that the consent that was offered by the majority leader 
would have actually gotten these measures up?
  You know what this proposal is effectively saying? This says that 
after the votes, even if we win the Patients' Bill of Rights with a 
majority of the Members of the Senate, it will be in order for the 
majority leader to--send it to the President of the United States if 
the House has already acted on it? No. To send it to the House of 
Representatives if they have not acted on it? No. Under the majority 
leader's proposal, if we pass it, after a debate, the majority leader 
sends it right back up there to the desk. It is over. Good-bye, 
farewell, so long, to protections for the patients of this country.
  Now, that is a farce, an absolute farce. I could go through the whole 
consent agreement, but it should not be given any more attention 
because it is a farce offered, evidently, only to make a political 
point.
  The Patients' Bill of Rights is a commonsense plan that guarantees 
fundamental protections that every good insurance company already 
provides and that every American who pays insurance premiums deserves 
to have when serious illness strikes.
  But the Republican leader's position is to protect the insurance 
industry instead of protecting the patients. They know they cannot do 
that in the light of day, so their strategy is to work behind closed 
doors to kill the bill, keep it bottled up in committee, no markup, no 
floor debate, no vote. That has been the strategy. Ask any Member of 
this body whether they can contest that. They cannot. No markup, no 
floor debate, no vote, no fair time agreement.
  Mr. Willis Gradison, the head of the Health Insurance Association of 
America, when asked in an interview published in the Rocky Mountain 
News to sum up the strategy of the businesses opposed to patient 
protections, replied:

       There's a lot to be said for ``just say no.''

  ``Just say no.'' The author of the article goes on to report that at 
a strategy session last month called by a top aide to Senator Don 
Nickles, Gradison advised Republicans to avoid taking public positions 
that could draw fire during the election campaign. Opponents will rely 
on Republican leaders in both Chambers to keep managed care legislation 
bottled up.
  Well, they have done a good job of bottling it up tonight. We would 
have had an opportunity for debate if they had not pulled down the 
underlying legislation. But, no, they bottled it up by sending the bill 
right back to the calendar.
  That has been the strategy for the past year--keep the Patients' Bill 
of Rights bottled up, engage in a campaign of misinformation and 
disinformation, cater to the special interests, ignore insurance 
company abuses, and ignore the will of the

[[Page S7572]]

American people. We are seeing that strategy in this Chamber this 
evening.
  Now, Mr. President, the rights that are included in our legislation 
are commonsense components of quality care that every family believes 
they were promised when they signed up for insurance coverage and paid 
their premiums. Virtually all of the protections that this legislation 
provides already apply to Medicare, are recommended by the National 
Association of Insurance Commissioners, which is a bipartisan group, or 
were recommended by the President's Advisory Commission, another 
nonpartisan group, or even established as voluntary standards by the 
managed care industry itself through their trade association.
  These commonsense rights include access to appropriate specialists 
when a patient's condition requires specialty care. It would allow 
people with chronic illnesses or disabilities to have referrals to the 
specialists they need on a regular basis.
  It assures that patients whose plans cover prescription drugs can 
have access to drugs needed to save their life or protect their health 
even if the drugs are not included on their plan's restricted list.
  They are assured that persons suffering from serious symptoms can go 
to the nearest emergency room without worrying that their plan will 
deny coverage. No patients with the symptoms of a heart attack should 
be forced to put their life at risk by driving past the emergency room 
down the street to the managed care hospital farther away, and that is 
happening here in the United States tonight.
  No patient with symptoms of a stroke should be forced to delay 
treatment to the point where paralysis and disability are permanent 
because an accountant in the managed care headquarters does not respond 
promptly and appropriately.
  Reforms must protect the integrity of the doctor-patient 
relationship. Gag clauses and improper incentive arrangements should 
have no place in American medicine. They are absolutely appalling, Mr. 
President.
  This amendment only says that any reform worthy of the name must 
guarantee that insurance plans meet the special needs of women and 
children. Women should have access to gynecologists for needed 
services. No woman with breast cancer should be forced to endure a 
drive-through mastectomy against the advice of her doctor or be denied 
reconstructive surgery following breast cancer surgery if that is her 
choice.
  No child with a childhood cancer should be told that a urologist who 
happens to be in the plan's network will treat him, even if that 
urologist has no experience or expertise with children or with that 
type of cancer.
  Patients should have the right to appeal their plans' decisions to 
independent third parties. Today, if a health plan breaks its promise, 
the only recourse for most patients is to go to court, a time-
consuming, costly process that may not provide relief in time to save a 
life or prevent a disability.
  Independent review was recommended unanimously by the President's 
Commission. Republicans and Democrats alike recommended independent 
review unanimously. It has worked successfully in Medicare for more 
than three decades. Families deserve the basic fairness that only a 
timely, impartial appeal can provide.
  Without such a mechanism, any rights guaranteed to patients exist on 
paper only, and they are often worth no more than the paper on which 
they are printed. When the issues are sickness and health, and often as 
serious as life and death, no health insurance company should be 
allowed to be both judge and jury.
  When health plan's misconduct results in serious injury or death, 
patients and their families should be able to hold those plans 
accountable for their actions. Every other industry in America can be 
held responsible for its actions. Why should health plans whose 
decisions can truly mean the difference between life and death enjoy 
this unique immunity?
  We had a debate on the issues of immunity not long ago with regard to 
the tobacco industry, and this body voted overwhelmingly not to give 
immunity to tobacco. These health plans have immunity today under the 
ERISA provisions. That is not right and we ought to address it. Every 
day and every night that we delay it, the health, the good health of 
American families is threatened. You would think, when you listen to 
the Republican leadership talk about scheduling, that it doesn't matter 
a twiddle whether this debate goes on today or tomorrow or next week or 
next month or next year. It does. And every day we delay means that 
more families' health protections are threatened.
  Under the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act, patients whose 
lives have been devastated or destroyed by the reckless behavior of 
their health plan have no ability to go to court to obtain appropriate 
redress. ERISA preempts all State remedies, so patients are limited to 
Federal ERISA remedies, which will only cover the cost of the procedure 
for which the plan failed to pay.
  Just the cost of the procedure--some remedy. You can be crippled for 
life by cancer of the spine because the plan refused to authorize a 
test costing a few hundred dollars to detect the cancer in its early 
stages, and all you can get back to help support your family is the 
cost of the test. That is no remedy. That is wrong. And our bill does 
something about it.
  During the debate on the tobacco legislation, as I mentioned, 
Republicans and Democrats alike voted overwhelmingly to support the 
proposition that no industry in America should be exempt from 
accountability because of its actions, but because of the ERISA 
preemption, one industry alone--the health insurance industry--enjoys 
this protection. That is wrong and today the Senate should have the 
opportunity to say it is wrong.
  ERISA preemption applies to the millions of Americans who get their 
coverage through a private employer, but it does not apply to 23 
million State and local employees and their families. It does not apply 
to Medicaid patients. It does not apply to Medicare. And we have not 
heard a shred of evidence that the ability of State and local 
employees, Medicaid patients and Medicare patients to sue their health 
plans has imposed significant costs on those plans. That case has not 
been made.
  Mr. President, 23 million State and county employees have that kind 
of ability to sue, and we have not seen that the costs of their plans 
have been higher than others. So I challenge my colleagues who oppose 
this provision to explain to the American people why State and local 
government employees should be able to hold their taxpayer-financed 
health plans accountable if they are injured or killed by the plan's 
behavior, but equally hard-working Americans employed by private 
companies should be denied this basic right. Explain that to me.
  Our legislation simply removes the Federal preemption provision. It 
creates no Federal right to sue and lets States take whatever steps 
they see fit. So many of those who oppose this legislation are fond of 
talking about the need to keep Washington out of decisions by States, 
but when the profits of special interests are at stake, it suddenly 
becomes better for bureaucrats in Washington rather than elected State 
and local officials to decide what is best for people in their State. 
This amendment should not be controversial for any Member of the Senate 
who is serious about protecting patients from insurance company abuse. 
It is supported by the American Medical Association--and more than 170 
other organizations, Mr. President. Let me just give you a few.
  The Patients' Bill of Rights is supported by the American Medical 
Association, the Consortium of Citizens with Disabilities, the American 
Cancer Society, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, the 
National Partnership for Women and Families, the National Association 
of Children's Hospitals, the AFL-CIO, the American Association of 
Retired Persons and many other groups representing physicians, health 
care providers, children, women, families, consumers, persons with 
disabilities, small businesses, Americans with serious illnesses, 
religious organizations, and working families.
  Find me another piece of pending legislation that has that kind of 
support. But we are told we cannot even debate it tonight. We are told 
we cannot even consider it tonight. We are told we cannot even move 
this legislation to have

[[Page S7573]]

a rollcall vote to see who is for it and who is against it.
  It is rare for such a broad and diverse coalition to come together in 
support of legislation. But they have done so to end the flagrant 
abuses that hurt so many families. The choice is clear. The Senate 
should stand with patients, families and physicians, not the well-
heeled special interests that put profits ahead of patients.
  The American people know what is going on. Movie audiences across the 
country erupt in cheers when actress Helen Hunt attacks the abuses of 
managed care in the film ``As Good As It Gets.'' Helen Hunt won an 
Oscar for that performance, but managed care is not winning any Oscars 
from the American people. Everyone knows that managed care today is not 
as good as it gets.
  It is time for Congress to end the abuses of patients and physicians 
by HMOs and managed care health plans. Too often, managed care is 
mismanaged care. No amount of distortions or smokescreens by insurance 
companies can change those facts. A Patients' Bill of Rights can stop 
these abuses, and let's pass it before more patients have to suffer.
  We want to tell our friends on the other side of the aisle that they 
are going to see this amendment day after day after day after day, 
until this body has a chance to debate it and vote on it. Let me give 
the assurance of that.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I ask that I be allowed to proceed as in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________