[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 139 (Sunday, October 29, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11335-S11336]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I would like to say a number of 
things. First of all, there is no reason for us to be here today on 
Sunday. It is not necessary. No good purpose is occurring. We had weeks 
of debate on the Patients' Bill of Rights. The Senator from 
Massachusetts is repeating those arguments. We had weeks of debate on 
education, of which I was a part.
  Now we come back, at the very end, and we are going to have a rehash 
of all of that. The President is going to hold up this legislation 
needed to operate this Government. He asks that the Congress come back 
on a daily basis--even on Sunday--to debate it. Somehow he thinks maybe 
through this political mechanism he can change a dynamic that is taking 
place in the American public. They are beginning to make a decision 
that, in my view, the White House is not happy about, and they are 
desperate to try to change that dynamic, to change that trend, and to 
try to create a disturbance on the floor of this Congress about matters 
we have been talking about all year, that should not be coming up now.
  There is no need for us to be here today. But we are here. I will be 
here every day that we need to be here. I will be here until Christmas. 
I will be here, Lord willing, after this President leaves office. And 
we will be talking about these issues.
  It is important that we do the right thing, that we not just be 
stampeded and pushed around and be worried about elections so we are 
afraid to vote because the President is out here saying ugly things 
about us if we don't do what he says. It is our duty to do the right 
thing. We have been considering these issues for months. We have been 
debating them for months. That is all we are about here today, to do 
the right thing.
  I hope the leaders on this side of the aisle do not do things just to 
get out of here. I am willing to stay, and other people I know are 
willing to stay, if need be, to debate and work toward a reasonable 
compromise, or to stand firm, if need be, on the issues that are 
important to America.
  I know the Senator from Massachusetts discussed the patients' bill of 
rights that Governor Bush allowed to become law in Texas. That bill did 
have the right to sue in it. It was a big part of our debate in the 
HELP Committee--the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee--
of which I am a member and of which the Senator from Massachusetts is a 
member.
  As I recall, several months ago, the Democrats were all touting this 
Texas bill because it has the right to sue in it, beyond what I think 
ought to be made a part of a health care reform bill.
  The Patients' Bill of Rights that came out of this Senate was 
debated. Amendments were offered on this floor. And they lost. The bill 
that came out of this Senate--and that is in debate in conference 
today--what does it do?
  When we talk about the right to sue, we are not talking about a 
doctor who might cut off the wrong leg and that you can't sue that 
doctor. It simply is, if an insurance company says this procedure--for 
example, maybe it is a cosmetic procedure and is not covered in your 
insurance policy, so they cannot pay for it; and the patient says: Yes. 
I think you should pay for it. So they want to have suits for punitive 
damages that go for years.

  So what was created in this legislation was a mechanism for every 
patient to have certain rights to get a prompt and full determination 
of what is just, and get their coverage if they are entitled to it.
  The way it would work would be that a physician could call and talk 
to an insurance company physician, an expert. If they do not agree that 
this was covered, they then could appeal to an out-of-the-insurance 
company expert or arbitrator approved by HCFA, the Health Care 
Financing Administration--the Federal Government--President Clinton's 
HCFA. They could then appeal and get an objective ruling on whether or 
not this was covered. Then there are certain litigation rights that 
continue to exist, in any case.
  But what I am hearing is, business companies that are providing 
insurance to their employees are saying: This costs us a lot of money. 
We are doing it for our employees. But if you are going to have us 
sued, Congress, we will just get out of the business of insuring our 
employees. We will just give our employees a certain amount of money 
and they can buy insurance or not buy insurance. It will not be our 
problem if they do not buy it. Tough luck. We have been doing this, but 
we are not going to be in the position that we are going to be sued.
  That was a big deal in this very Congress. And the law in Texas is 
more generous on lawsuits than the one we approved in this Senate.
  Senator Kennedy wanted wide-open lawsuits. He supported that 
aggressively, but he lost. He did not win that issue. It is not the 
will of this Senate. We ought not to be worrying about this

[[Page S11336]]

at this point in time, this late in the day, when we need to approve 
legislation to fund this Government.
  The Senator from Massachusetts also came to the floor to talk about 
education. Yes, it is a top priority. We are increasing funding for 
education. I am on the education committee. We discussed that. In the 
last 2 years this Congress has spent more money on education than 
President Clinton asked for. We increased his request for education 
money. We spent more than he asked for.
  But what was the debate? It went on an extended period of time right 
here. The debate was: Who is going to direct how it all gets spent? 
Were we going to trust the men and women who run our schools, the men 
and women who have been elected in each one of our communities to be on 
the school board? Are we going to trust them to spend more of this 
Federal money or are we going to continue to micromanage education 
dollars from Washington?
  I have been in 20 schools this year. I have met with principals, 
teachers, and students in each of these schools. I always set a time to 
meet with the principals and teachers, and usually school board members 
drop in, and I ask them what their problems are.
  I say: The Federal Government gives about 7 percent of the cost of 
education in America; 93 percent comes from State and local 
governments. I ask: Based on the regulations and paperwork, the 
interruption in your ability to discipline in the schools caused by 
Federal regulation, which would you prefer--the Federal Government take 
its 7 percent and leave, take away the paperwork and the rules and 
regulations, or get the 7 percent?
  The answer: Take your money and go.
  These are teachers who have given their lives to education. They are 
passionate about this. They don't want a Federal bureaucracy in 
Washington running their schools. What they would like is as much money 
as we can get to them. And we are increasing funding for State 
education well above the inflation rate, two or three times the 
inflation rate above what President Clinton has asked for. We tried to 
pass a new Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which is up for 
reauthorization this year. We had to stop considering it basically 
because of a filibuster from the other side. We voted. We had 
amendments. We went on for over 2 weeks debating the issue.
  The other side was losing that debate. They were losing the votes. 
But if you don't have over 60 votes here, you can't shut off debate. 
The majority leader urged them to agree to a time limit. He said we can 
have many more amendments, and let's vote on them and bring this bill 
to conclusion. But they would not because, in fact, they had a 
filibuster going on. They did not want to change this old educational 
system that is run by bureaucracies 10 feet deep, people who have lost 
sight of what education is all about. All they want to do is make sure 
their accounting is right in every school system in America.
  There are over 700 Federal education programs in this country. The 
other side keeps arguing that we can't get rid of them. No, we can't 
consolidate them. No, we can't trust the people in our communities we 
elect to run our schools. No, they are not to be trusted. We have to 
tell them what to do. One Senator on this floor said: They may spend 
the money on swimming pools. Who knows best how to educate children--
professional educators, teachers who have given their lives to it, 
principals who are dedicated to it, or some Senator here who has 
thousands of issues that come before them, everything from Medicare, 
Social Security, the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, all those issues? We 
don't know education. Neither does Al Gore know education.
  I will tell you who has been wrestling with education for six years, 
and that is the Governor of Texas. Governors are involved in education. 
When he talks about education, he talks about it with a deep and 
abiding passion because he understands it. He has been in schools all 
over Texas. He is hearing the same things I have heard in the 20 
schools I have been in around Alabama this year: that the Federal 
Government is not an aid, is not helping us, it is hurting us.
  We have Federal regulations that keep children in classrooms who are 
a threat to the teacher and the students, and they cannot be removed 
because of Federal rules. We have paperwork that is driving them crazy. 
They can't spend the money on what they need to spend it on. They have 
to spend it only on what this Government and its 700 education programs 
say to spend it on.
  So we tried to fix that. We couldn't do it because of the President 
and the filibuster that went on here. If we elect the Governor of 
Texas, who has managed education, as Governors do, who ran on 
education, got elected on education, and was elected with a 69-percent 
vote for reelection on education, we are going to get some changes.

  The bureaucrats in Washington, the special interest crowd in 
Washington, the group that tries to turn out votes in elections, those 
people are not going to be happy. But teachers, principals, parents, 
and school board members are going to be happy because it is time for a 
change. It is time to break this Washington stranglehold on education. 
We give less than 10 percent of the money for education, but we 
micromanage how it is all spent. It is not acceptable, and we must stop 
it.

                          ____________________