[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 23932-23933]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                     MENTAL ILLNESS DISCRIMINATION

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, when I was speaking about the homeless 
veterans, many who struggled, I wanted to bring colleagues up to date 
about the whole issue of discrimination against people who are 
struggling with mental illness.
  It is difficult to believe that in the year 2001 there is a whole 
class of citizens--probably well over 20 percent of the families in 
this country have a loved one who struggles with mental illness--
certainly, all of us know someone who does--and they face 
discrimination. There still is a tremendous stigma attached to people 
who struggle with mental illness. I remember testimony from a doctor 
who said that when someone is in a hospital and they have had surgery 
for cancer and they have had chemotherapy or radiation treatments and 
they come home, neighbors gather around and give them support. Do you 
know what. That is exactly the way it should be.
  Often, if it is somebody who struggles with mental illness and they 
get out of a hospital, you don't see neighbors gathering around and 
saying we want to support you. It is still considered by too many to be 
a moral failing, even though it is a brain disease.
  There was an editorial today--and I will not read from it because I 
think Senator Domenici will--from the L.A. Times that is so powerful, 
calling for parity and ending the discrimination for this brain 
disease.
  Unfortunately, this discrimination is reflected in the coverage. What 
we have right now in so many health care plans around the United States 
of America, if you or your loved one--and, again, I am so sorry I don't 
have the figures with me. Just take suicide among young people. Suicide 
kills more young people than cancer and about six, seven, or eight 
other terrible diseases we all hear about.
  Suicide in Minnesota is the second leading cause of death in young 
people. Nationwide it is the third. Your son or daughter is severely 
depressed and you need help. You are told you have a few days in the 
hospital, and that is it. You can have some outpatient visits outside 
the hospital, but just a few days, and that is it. Also, the copays and 
deductibles are very high; in other words, what you have to pay before 
there is any coverage or the percentage you have to pay.
  It is completely different if your child has diabetes or a heart 
condition or a broken ankle. We would not do that to people. We would 
not say: OK, you struggle with this disease, diabetes; you are in the 
hospital a few days and then you are out or you can only see your 
doctor so many times and there is no more coverage.
  Even in our Medicare system, which I want us to change as well--by 
the way, the highest percentage population of suicide is with the 
elderly. People do not realize that. All too often we say: Oh, well, if 
I was 80 and I was having a hard time walking, I would be depressed, 
too. It is incredible the way we trivialize this illness and the way we 
discriminate.
  Do my colleagues know that in our Medicare program, if one goes under 
part B to see a doctor for a physical illness, it is a 20-percent 
copay. If you struggle with depression and go to see someone for help, 
it is a 50-percent copay. That is blatant discrimination. That should 
end.
  Senator Domenici and I--I thank him for his work; it has been an 
honor to work with him--bring this bill to the floor. There has never 
been a hearing in the House of Representatives on the problem of 
discrimination. We offered an amendment to the Labor-HHS appropriations 
bill. We had 66 Senators who signed on, and it passed out of the HELP 
Committee 21 to 0. We passed it. Then it went to the conference 
committee.
  I am speaking for myself, not for Senator Domenici or any other 
Senator. It is clear what is going on. We are in a fierce fight, but it 
is one of these fights that is not as open and public as one would 
want. Robert Pear wrote an update about this issue in the New York 
Times today. Thank goodness.
  Overall it is hard to get the public's attention on this issue. There 
is a fierce fight going on. The insurance industry has gone to a couple 
of people in the House and has basically said: Kill it. Thanks to the 
work of Patrick Kennedy, Marge Roukema, and others in the House, I 
believe there are around 250 House Members who have signed a letter 
saying: Keep this in the conference committee, pass it, end the 
discrimination.
  If we ended the discrimination, it would be civil rights. We would 
end the discrimination in treatment for people who struggle with this 
illness. Believe me, I say to my colleagues, it is an illness. It is 
for real.
  Second, if there is money in the plans, the care will follow the 
money, and a lot of kids will get help rather than winding up 
incarcerated. A lot of people will get help rather than winding up 
homeless. A lot of adults will get help rather than winding up in 
prison. A lot of people will not miss as many days at work and be more 
productive and families will be better off. There will be fewer 
problems. This is the thing to do. It is the right thing to do.
  The CBO says it will cost 1 percent increase in premiums. That is it. 
Not to mention the $70 billion David Satcher, our Surgeon General, said 
we spend as a result of our failure to provide the treatment for 
people. Mr. President, $70 billion over 5 years is

[[Page 23933]]

$350 billion. It is not only morally the right thing to do, it is 
economically the right thing to do. It is 2001. We should have done 
this 100 years ago.
  The insurance industry marches on Washington, DC, every day, and they 
put the word out, they put the fix in: Kill it in conference.
  I have come to the Chamber of the Senate today to ask my colleagues 
to please be strong and hang in there. Senators Harkin and Specter are 
our key leaders. Hold the line. I have come here to appeal to House 
Members to not kill this bill, and I have come to appeal to the White 
House: We need your help. This is the perfect example of compassionate 
conservatism. It is a matter of ending the discrimination.
  Kay Jameson, who has written some brilliant books and just won a 
McArthur Foundation Genius Award--she deserves it--has written that the 
gap between what we know and what we do is lethal. The tragedy to all 
this is that these illnesses--I mentioned depression as one example; I 
could mention many others as well--are diagnosable and treatable, in 
fact, with a far greater success rate than many of the physical 
illnesses.
  My wife Sheila and I started going to some gatherings with an 
organization called SAVE which was started by Al and Mary Ann Kluzner 
in Minnesota. Al Kluzner is a Republican. I hope Mary is not. I am 
teasing.
  The point is, this illness does not know any political party 
boundaries. It does not know any economic boundaries. SAVE is an 
organization of family members who lost loved ones to suicide. One 
feels that it is their own fault where all the evidence shows this is a 
brain disease. It used to be it was maybe 50 people coming together, 
and sometimes now the gatherings are 300 and 400 people. This is all 
about making sure they get the help. This is all about making sure that 
the illness is treated. This is all about preventing suicide. This is 
all about dealing with a broad range of mental illnesses that affect 
adults and children throughout our country, and yet we have this 
discrimination. We do not even tell the plans they have to provide the 
coverage. I want to. We just say if you have mental health coverage, 
treat it the same as physical health. There should be no 
discrimination.
  This insurance industry has tried to put the fix in and stop this in 
conference committee.
  I am still hoping we can get the support from the White House. I am 
still hoping we can pass this legislation because the consequences are 
so tragic if we fail to pass it.
  Mr. President, I will stop, otherwise I will go on for hours. I yield 
the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Wellstone). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________