[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12453-12484]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



              BIPARTISAN PATIENT PROTECTION ACT--Continued


                 Amendment No. 833, As Further Modified

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have an amendment which has been 
pending. I send to the desk a modification of that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
  The amendment (No. 833) as further modified, is as follows:

       On page 154, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       ``(11) Limitation on attorneys' fees.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, or any arrangement, agreement, or contract regarding an 
     attorney's fee, the amount of an attorney's contingency fee 
     allowable for a cause of action brought pursuant to this 
     subsection shall not exceed \1/3\ of the total amount of the 
     plaintiff's recovery (not including the reimbursement of 
     actual out-of-pocket expenses of the attorney).
       ``(B) Determination by district court.--The last Federal 
     district court in which the action was pending upon the final 
     disposition, including all appeals, of the action shall have 
     jurisdiction to review the attorney's fee in accordance with 
     subparagraph (C) to ensure that the fee is a reasonable one 
     and may decrease the amount of the fee in accordance with 
     subparagraph (C).
       ``(C) Determination of reasonableness of fee.--
       ``(i) Initial determination of lodestar estimate.--

       ``(I) In general.--To determine whether the attorney's fee 
     is a reasonable one, the court first shall, with respect to 
     each attorney representing the plaintiff in the cause of 
     action, multiply the number of hours determined under 
     subclause (II) by the hourly rate determined under subclause 
     (III).
       ``(II) Number of hours.--The court shall determine the 
     number of hours reasonably expended by each such attorney.
       ``(III) Hourly rate.--The court shall determine a 
     reasonable hourly rate for each such attorney, taking into 
     consideration the actual fee that would be charged by each 
     such attorney and what the court determines is the prevailing 
     rate for other similarly situated attorneys.

       ``(ii) Consideration of other factors.--A court may 
     increase or decrease the product determined under clause (i) 
     by taking into consideration any or all of the following 
     factors:

       ``(I) The time and labor involved.
       ``(II) The novelty and difficulty of the questions 
     involved.
       ``(III) The skill required to perform the legal service 
     properly.
       ``(IV) The preclusion of other employment of the attorney 
     due to the acceptance of the case.
       ``(V) The customary fee of the attorney.
       ``(VI) Whether the original fee arrangement is a fixed or 
     contingent fee arrangement.
       ``(VII) The time limitations imposed by the attorney's 
     client on the circumstances of the representation.
       ``(VIII) The amount of damages sought in the cause of 
     action and the amount recovered.
       ``(IX) The experience, reputation, and ability of the 
     attorney.
       ``(X) The undesirability of the case.
       ``(XI) The nature and length of the attorney's professional 
     relationship with the client.
       ``(XII) The amounts recovered and attorneys' fees awarded 
     in similar cases.

       ``(D) Rare, extraordinary circumstances.--Notwithstanding 
     subparagraph (A), in rare, extraordinary circumstances, the 
     court may raise the attorney's fee above the \1/3\ cap 
     imposed under subparagraph (A) to ensure a balance of equity 
     and fairness to both the attorney and the plaintiff.
       On page 170, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:
       ``(9) Limitation on attorneys' fees.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, or any arrangement, agreement, or contract regarding an 
     attorney's fee, subject to subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E), 
     the amount of an attorney's contingency fee allowable for a 
     cause of action brought under paragraph (1) shall not exceed 
     \1/3\ of the total amount of the plaintiff's recovery (not 
     including the reimbursement of actual out-of-pocket expenses 
     of the attorney).
       ``(B) Determination by court.--The last court in which the 
     action was pending upon the final disposition, including all 
     appeals, of the action may review the attorney's fee to 
     ensure that the fee is a reasonable one. In determining 
     whether a fee is reasonable, the court may use the 
     reasonableness factors set forth in section 502(n)(11)(C).
       ``(C) Equitable discretion.--A court in its discretion may 
     decrease the amount of an attorney's fee determined under 
     this paragraph as equity and the interests of justice may 
     require.
       ``(D) Rare, extraordinary circumstances.--Notwithstanding 
     subparagraph (A), in rare, extraordinary circumstances, the 
     court may raise the attorney's fee above the \1/3\ cap 
     imposed under subparagraph (A) to ensure a balance of equity 
     and fairness to both the attorney and the plaintiff.
       ``(E) No preemption of state law.--Subparagraph (A) shall 
     not apply with respect to a cause of action under paragraph 
     (1) that is brought in a State that has a law or framework of 
     laws with respect to the amount of an attorney's contingency 
     fee that may be incurred for the representation of a 
     participant or beneficiary (or the estate of such participant 
     or beneficiary) who brings such a cause of action.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I want to comply with the wishes of the 
distinguished leaders.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, may we have order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is not in order. The Senate will 
suspend. Please take your conversations off the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to accommodate the managers, but I 
am ready to proceed. I think I can describe my amendment in about 10 or 
15 minutes or less. I urge colleagues to accept that offer to move 
ahead and give equal time to each side.
  Mr. REID. I am sorry, I say to my friend, the distinguished Senator 
from Virginia, we have had trouble hearing over here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. The Senator from 
Virginia is entitled to be heard.
  The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. I say to my good friend, the distinguished majority whip, 
I am seeking now to address my amendment. It has been pending for some 
several days. I am perfectly willing to enter into a time agreement. I 
need but, say, 15 minutes.
  Mr. REID. Say 30 minutes evenly divided?
  Mr. WARNER. I am quite agreeable to 30 minutes equally divided.
  Mr. REID. Our anticipation now--we will work this out, speaking with 
the managers of the bill--is to offer side by side with yours, or 
second degree, whatever your manager wishes to do, but you should go 
ahead and proceed. We are available during our 15 minutes to respond.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, might I have clarification? If I 
understand it on the second-degree, in the event it seems we need some 
adjustment in the time agreement with which to address that----
  Mr. REID. Why not take an hour evenly divided, and if we don't need 
it, we will yield back the time?

[[Page 12454]]


  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I am not sure what the Senator from 
Virginia wishes to do. I hope they will not second degree your 
amendment but, rather, offer an amendment which would be a stand-alone, 
side-by-side amendment.
  Mr. REID. I am sorry, did you say you wanted to offer it side by 
side? That is what we want to do.
  Mr. WARNER. That is perfectly agreeable. Could my amendment be voted 
on first?
  Mr. REID. Of course--well, let me not get my mouth ahead of my head.
  In the past what we have done, Mr. President, is the second-degree 
amendment could be a second-degree amendment that appears to be the one 
we would ordinarily vote on first. Through all these proceedings, the 
stand-alone was the one we would vote on first. In other words, that 
could have been a second-degree. That is what we have done in the past.
  Mr. GREGG. Actually, we did reverse the order on the Snowe----
  Mr. REID. It is not important whether it is first or second. Do you 
agree?
  Mr. EDWARDS. We should go first.
  Mr. REID. Through these entire proceedings--I don't know how many 
votes it has been now, but certainly it is lots of them--the one that 
would have been the second-degree should be voted on first. We think we 
should do it in this instance.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I believe I have the floor. I believe the 
amendment is up. We are simply discussing a time agreement. I am not 
prepared to yield the right that I believe I now have with respect to 
proceeding with this amendment. But I want to accommodate my 
distinguished friend. He has been most helpful for 3 or 4 days, as I 
have worked on this amendment.
  Could you be more explicit exactly what you think you would like to 
have? I understand you have to consult with others.
  Mr. REID. What we would like to do is offer an amendment that would 
be voted on, a companion to yours.
  Mr. WARNER. Fine.
  Mr. REID. The only question now, it seems, is which one would be 
voted on first. What we have done during these entire proceedings 
except for one bipartisan amendment that was offered by the Senator 
from Maine, the one that would have been a second-degree is voted on 
first. We think we should follow that same order.
  Mr. WARNER. I simply ask as a matter of courtesy--some 3 days I have 
been working with you--just allow mine to be voted first. Certainly we 
could have discussion on the one that is in sequence. I am confident 
Members will very quickly grasp the basic, elementary framework that I 
have in my amendment. And I presume any companion amendment you or 
others wish to introduce would likewise be very elementary. We could 
quickly make decisions, all Senators, on it and proceed with our 
business this afternoon.
  Mr. REID. I say to the Senator from Virginia, I know some of our 
friends would rather we went first. We feel pretty confident of our 
vote, so we will go second.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I like a man who is audacious. I accept 
that challenge. We will proceed on mine. I need only about 10 minutes 
to address it.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Will the distinguished senior Senator from Virginia 
yield for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. WARNER. Oh, yes.
  Mr. DASCHLE. We were able to reach this agreement with the 
cooperation of all our colleagues. I think we are now prepared to 
propound the agreement.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following be the only 
first-degree amendments remaining in order to S. 1052, except the 
Warner and Ensign amendments which have been laid aside and which now 
are being debated, that they be subject to relevant second-degree 
amendments; all amendments must be offered and disposed of by the close 
of business today; and that upon disposition of these amendments the 
bill be read a third time and a vote on final passage of the bill occur 
without any intervening action or debate:
  Frist substitute; Frist, liability; Craig, long-term care; Craig, 
nuclear medicine; Kyl, alternative insurance; Santorum, unions; 
Nickles, liability; Bond, punitives; Thompson, regarding point of 
order; Kennedy, two relevant; Daschle, two relevant; Carper, relevant, 
to be offered and withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object, I ask if the majority 
leader would be willing to adjust his unanimous consent so Senator 
Ensign could modify his amendment, which is pending, and also, because 
we have not seen the Kennedy, Daschle, or Carper amendments, we would 
want to reserve the right to have a second-degree amendment.
  Mr. DASCHLE. The amendments are subject to second degrees, of course. 
I ask consent the Ensign amendment be allowed to be modified.
  Mr. CRAIG. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Reserving the right to object, a simple point: My 
amendment was listed as one having to do with a point of order. If we 
could correct that, it actually has to do with venue.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I ask consent the clarification be made with regard to 
the Thompson amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. I also ask that the Nickles amendment be defined as 
relevant, rather than liability, and, since the majority leader has 
asked to reserve two relevant amendments, the Republican leader be 
given two relevant amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the majority leader modify the request?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent that the request be so modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is modified.
  The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, may I inquire of the majority leader, is it 
your intent to at least shape the field of amendments into a set number 
but there is no time tied to those? Is that correct?
  Mr. DASCHLE. That is correct.
  Mr. CRAIG. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request. Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank our colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I may just proceed, my understanding is 
that we have 30 minutes equally divided under the time agreement. Is 
that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That has not been propounded.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I suggest we just leave it open. I want to 
give adequate opportunity to those who wish to address this subject. I 
will proceed.
  Mr. President, for some time I have followed this bill very 
carefully. I am, of course, quite aware of the name of it--the 
Patients' Bill of Rights. I want to ask the Senate to give serious 
consideration to protecting the right of a patient to receive what I 
regard as a fair return on such awards as a court may approve, 
presumably, by a jury recognizing the plaintiff's case has merit and 
assigns an award figure.
  The McCain-Kennedy-Edwards bill provides new rights. But there is 
nothing in there to give the patients the protection from what could 
well be perceived by many as an unfair allocation of that award between 
attorneys and patients. Therefore, I think there should be a framework 
of caps on the maximum amount of the award to be made.
  May I explain it.
  It is kind of complicated because we have a Federal court and a State 
court. While I don't know the ultimate finality of this legislation, at 
this point the amendment provides for the treatment of caps in both 
courts, and they are somewhat different.
  In addition, I believe very strongly that there is in rare instances 
and under extraordinary circumstances a case where an attorney would be 
entitled to in excess of the one-third cap that I am proposing in both 
Federal and State courts. An allowance has to be made for the 
exceptional type of case.

[[Page 12455]]

  I am proposing a framework of caps. It would be giving the court the 
right to only approve attorney's fees in a case up to one-third of the 
award of the damages. It could well be that the client may have struck 
an arrangement with his attorney for less than one-third. It recognizes 
that situation.
  Having the one-third cap strengthens the ability of the patient--the 
client--to get a fee structure which is consistent with their receiving 
the majority of the ultimate one-third as the basic structure in both 
the Federal and the State court.
  In addition, in both Federal and State court, we have exceptions in 
rare cases, and extraordinary facts, where the judge can go above the 
one-third with no cap.
  We have reposed confidence in our judiciary system. Indeed, we have 
reposed confidence in those members of the bar. Many years ago, I was 
privileged to be an active practitioner before the bar and had 
extensive trial experience as assistant U.S. attorney and some modest 
trial experience in other areas.
  I recognize that the vast majority of the bar will work out a fee 
schedule with their client in such a way that there will be an 
equitable distribution. But there are instances where the patient could 
well be deserving of the award by the court and then prohibited from 
getting what I perceive as a fair and proportionate share by someone 
who does not follow the norm.
  The norm in most cases does not exceed one-third. Contingent fees are 
usually one-third or less. Therefore, we put in the cap of the one-
third.
  I also want to make it clear that there is a good deal of expense to 
a lawyer associated with representing a client. They pass it on to the 
client, of course, but that expense is over and above the fees. If it 
is a 2-week trial with a lot of expenses associated with it, it does 
not come out of the one-third allocation. It is over and above, and 
again subject to the court's discretion.
  We lay out a formula for the Federal courts under the lodestar 
method. That is a formula that was approved by the Supreme Court of the 
United States as it relates to attorney fees in Federal cases.
  Here are basically the factors the court would review in the Federal 
system: The time involved by the attorney; the difficulty of the 
questions involved; the skill requisite to perform the legal services; 
or the preclusion of employment of the attorney due to acceptance of 
the case.
  In other words, he is giving up other opportunities to take on this 
case.
  What are the customary fees that are before the courts and the bar in 
the jurisdiction that the case is held? Whether the fee is fixed or 
contingent; time limitations imposed by the client on the 
circumstances; the amount involved in the return of the jury in most 
instances; the experience and reputation and the ability of the 
particular attorney, and on it goes. But it is carefully worked out 
through many years of following these cases.
  Therefore, I believe that we are giving protection to the patient. 
For rare and extraordinary cases, the court can go above it. In some 
instances, the court will decide that the one-third is not appropriate, 
and that it should be some fee less than a third, again protecting the 
interests of the patient.
  I find this a very reasonable amendment. It certainly comports with 
the basic objectives of this law; namely, to give some benefits to 
those who have suffered the grievances which are designated in this 
law.
  I also recognize the Federal-State law; that is, what we call States 
rights. I have been a strong proponent of that throughout my career in 
the Senate.
  I provide that in the case of a State court, if the State in which 
that court sits has a framework of laws which govern attorney fees, 
then this amendment does not apply.
  I repeat that the State law would govern the return to the attorney 
of that amount to which he or she is entitled for their services--not 
this proposed amendment.
  Mr. President, I see my colleague in the Chamber.
  I yield the floor for the moment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request I am 
going to propose in just a minute--or in even less than a minute.
  Senator Gregg is in the Chamber, and I appreciate his listening.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized to offer 
an additional first-degree amendment, with 30 minutes for debate in 
relation to the Warner amendment and the Reid amendment to run 
concurrently prior to a vote in relation to the Warner amendment--which 
the Senator from Virginia indicated he wanted first--followed by a vote 
in relation to the Reid amendment, with no second-degree amendments in 
order prior to the votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 852

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Warner and I have worked side by 
side all the time I have been in the Senate on the Environment and 
Public Works Committee. I have been his subcommittee chairman; he has 
been my subcommittee chairman. Twice I have been chairman of the full 
committee. I have been the ranking member of that committee.
  There is no one I have worked with in the Senate who is more of a 
gentleman than the Senator from the Commonwealth of Virginia, Mr. 
Warner. He has been a pleasure to work with. We tried to work this out 
on the attorney's fees. We have been unable to do that. But his 
amendment is, in my opinion, very complicated. It is going to create 
litigation, not solve it.
  We have a fair way to address this issue. Even though personally, as 
an attorney, I had done a great deal of defense work where I was paid 
by the hour and a significant amount of work where I was paid on a 
contingency fee basis many years before I came back here, I think 
contingent fees should be based upon whatever the States determine is 
appropriate.
  But I am willing to go along with the basic concept of the Senator 
from Virginia; and that is we will go for a straight one-third, no 
complications. It is very simple: A straight one-third.
  Senator Warner's proposal introduces a complex calculation in every 
case and ignores the agreements between injured patients and their 
lawyers. This proposal portends to tell State judges how to apply State 
law. We do not need to do that here in Washington.
  This proposal ties only one side's hands in litigation. HMOs can hire 
all the attorneys they want and plaintiffs cannot. There is no 
restriction on how much money the attorneys for the HMOs make. We are 
not going to get into that today. We could. It would be a very 
interesting issue to get into.
  But what we are saying is, when you walk down in the well to vote on 
the amendments, we have a very simple proposal: It is one-third, 
period. Under Senator Warner's proposal, it is something, and we will 
figure it out later based on how many hours, and where you did it, and 
what kind of case it was. Ours is simple, direct, and to the point. It 
would only complicate things to support the amendment of my friend from 
Virginia.
  Mr. President, at this time, after explaining my amendment, I call my 
amendment forward and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 852.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To limit the amount of attorneys' fees in a cause of action 
                        brought under this Act)

       On page 154, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       ``(11) Limitation on award of attorneys' fees.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), with 
     respect to a participant or beneficiary (or the estate of 
     such participant or

[[Page 12456]]

     beneficiary) who brings a cause of action under this 
     subsection and prevails in that action, the amount of 
     attorneys' contingency fees that a court may award to such 
     participant, beneficiary, or estate under subsection (g)(1) 
     (not including the reimbursement of actual out-of-pocket 
     expenses of an attorney as approved by the court in such 
     action) may not exceed an amount equal to \1/3\ of the amount 
     of the recovery.
       ``(B) Equitable discretion.--A court in its discretion may 
     adjust the amount of an award of attorneys' fees required 
     under subparagraph (A) as equity and the interests of justice 
     may require.
       On page 170, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:
       ``(9) Limitation on attorneys' fees.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, or any arrangement, agreement, or contract regarding 
     attorneys' contingency fees, subject to subparagraph (B), a 
     court shall limit the amount of attorneys' fees that may be 
     incurred for the representation of a participant or 
     beneficiary (or the estate of such participant or 
     beneficiary) who brings a cause of action under paragraph (1) 
     to the amount of attorneys' fees that may be awarded under 
     section 502(n)(11).
       ``(B) Equitable discretion.--A court in its discretion may 
     adjust the amount of attorneys' fees allowed under 
     subparagraph (A) as equity and the interests of justice may 
     require.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President and Members of the Senate, the language in 
this amendment was not made up in some back room by my staff or 
somebody from downtown. It was taken--every word of it--directly from 
the amendment originally offered by the Senator from Virginia--exactly 
identical, not a word changed.
  Certain paragraphs were taken out of his amendment. It is far too 
complicated. But every word in my amendment is directly from the 
amendment offered by the Senator from Virginia. I ask Senators to 
support my amendment, what should be a bipartisan amendment.
  There are some people who want no restrictions. We have acknowledged 
that we are going to, in this instance, have a restriction. If there is 
going to be one, it should be direct and to the point, as is this one.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield whatever time the Senator from 
Delaware wants.
  Mr. BIDEN. Five minutes.
  Mr. REID. Five minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, for clarification, are we under a time 
agreement?
  Mr. REID. Yes, we are.
  Mr. WARNER. Was that in the unanimous consent agreement?
  Mr. REID. Yes. But I say to the Senator, whatever time you need we 
can yield to you.
  Mr. WARNER. Fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I always find these debates about 
attorney's fees fascinating. I find my friends on both sides of the 
aisle who usually are seeking to restrict attorney's fees are the most 
big-time free enterprise guys in the world. They are people who tell us 
we should not freeze and/or put limitations on the amount of money 
energy companies can make, even though it bears no relationship to 
cost. They are folks who told us out in California--when you have 
utility companies gouging the public--that we should not, even though 
we have authority under Federal law, put on some limitations. They are 
folks who tell us that, notwithstanding the fact that a drug company 
may be able to manufacture a pill for one-quarter of 1 cent and sell it 
for $75, there should not be any relationship between the amount of 
cost involved and the profit made.
  I find it absolutely fascinating. For example--I am not going to do 
it--a great amendment to the amendment by my friend from Virginia would 
be the following: That any fee charged by an HMO for health care 
coverage must bear direct relationship to their cost and cannot exceed 
a profit rate of X amount. That would be fair, right?
  All these folks who can't afford health insurance, who are getting 
banged around and battered, we are trying to help, but I imagine I 
would not get many votes for that. I bet my friend from Virginia would 
not vote for that because that is free enterprise.
  My grandfather Finnegan used to have an expression. He said: You 
know, it's kind of fascinating. There's free enterprise for some 
people, free enterprise for the poor, and socialism for the rich. You 
find yourself in a position where, if you are representing the right 
interest, we talk about free enterprise; if you don't like the 
interests that are at stake, you find that you should have socialism, 
you should have imposed limitations on fees or on profits, based on 
whether you like what is going on.
  I do not know whether most people know this, that an awful lot of 
these folks who want to bring suit against a giant company don't have 
any money. These giant companies, they have a lot of money and a lot of 
lawyers. So what they do is, they depose you to death, which costs 
thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars.
  So what happens? You go to a lawyer, and you say: Look, I have this 
claim. And the lawyer sits down and says: OK, who knows what the jury 
will do, and who knows what will happen with regard to the defense that 
is going to be put up? And it seems to me you have a case. You have a 
60-percent chance of winning this case. I'll tell you what I will do. I 
am going to front all the expenses. I am going to take all the chances.
  It is sort of free enterprise. It may cost that law firm $50, $500, 
$5,000, $50,000, $100,000, and they are betting on the come. They are 
betting on the come. Some law firms actually risk their solvency on a 
case that they believe is worth pursuing.
  Then you are going to come along and say: By the way--after the fact, 
after the risk is taken on behalf of a client, where you may get 
absolutely nothing and you may end up in the hole, losing a lot of 
money, because I can tell you, major corporations do what they are 
entitled to do under this system. They have batteries of lawyers, and 
they just depose the devil out of you. It costs. For example, the 
person taking down my comments right now, the cost to the American 
taxpayer for that transcription is hundreds of thousands of dollars a 
year--millions of dollars a year. We need to have a record, and we do 
it.
  The same thing happens in the depositions. Somebody sits with a 
little machine like that and types away. So if I am the deep-pocket 
company and I want to run you out, all I do is I keep deposing you; I 
keep submitting interrogatories; and I run your cost up because you 
have to pay for that.
  I guess the only point I am trying to make is--and I don't want to 
take the time because I am sure everybody's mind is already made up on 
this thing--if you feel good about lawyer bashing, if you feel good 
about making the case that you should have to justify, on an hourly 
basis, exactly what you do, and all of these things, not calculate the 
risk, not calculate the cost, then fine, have at it.
  But I don't know; what is good for the goose isn't good for the 
gander. If we do this with regard to attorney's fees and we don't do 
this with regard to health care costs and fees, what is the fundamental 
difference? Tell me the fundamental difference, all of a sudden, in the 
great interest of my friends to protect the poor, aggrieved plaintiff, 
who has been wronged by the insurance company. At any rate, I am as 
anxious to get out of here as everybody is. I wanted to make it clear: 
I think this is bad law, bad policy, a bad idea, and it is, in a 
literal sense, discriminatory.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, this legislation that is now before the body 
is not about attorney's fees. It is about patient protection, making 
sure people in America have certain rights that have been taken away 
from them. We want to reestablish something that is kind of old-
fashioned in the minds of many--that is, when you go see your doctor, 
the doctor determines what kind of medicine you need and what kind of 
care you need. That is what this legislation is all about. It is not 
about attorney's fees.
  If the people on the other side were interested in saving money, one 
of the amendments they should have would address the compensation of 
some of these employees. There is a list, and you can go to the top 10. 
The first one, including stock options, made

[[Page 12457]]

$411,995,000 last year. That is just a little item they might be 
concerned about a little bit. We have a lot of money that isn't 
necessarily needed.
  This is not about how much money people make. What it is about is 
trying to pass a Patients' Bill of Rights. I ask that we move forward 
as quickly as possible and vote and get on with the rest of the 
legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. REID. The Senator from Tennessee may have some of mine.
  Mr. THOMPSON. A couple of minutes, if I may, Mr. President.
  I have been listening to the debate. We are making it much more 
complicated than it needs to be. We are talking about whether or not 
this is a good idea. The sponsors of these two amendments always come 
forth with good ideas. I will not debate that these are possibly a 
couple of those good ideas.
  I am afraid we are not permitted to get that far because not every 
good idea is constitutionally permissible. I simply do not see our 
authority, even if we want to do this under the Constitution, to say to 
a State court, having lifted the preemption that was there before, that 
in its deliberations and in its lawsuits it will be trying, that we 
have, in a government of enumerated powers, the authority to reach in 
and do that. This is not raising an army. This is not copyrights and 
patents. This is not interstate commerce. I simply see no basis of 
authority for the Congress to do this, whether it is a good idea or not 
in our system of enumerated powers.
  If I am incorrect about that or there is something I am not thinking 
about, I will stand corrected. That is a concern of mine.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I could reply to my distinguished 
colleague, that very question I entertain because I take pride in my 
record of some 23 years in this body to protect State laws.
  The first thing I did under my amendment was say, if there is a body 
of State law, then my amendment doesn't apply to those decisions in 
State courts. So I think there is some dozen or so that have a 
statutory framework for the regulation of attorney fees. Those States 
are the one side.
  But we find authority that it is within the power of the Congress to 
regulate interstate commerce. We have a proposed bill giving new rights 
to litigants. We believe that comes within that clause. That is how I 
proceed to do it.
  We are just very fearful, I say to my distinguished colleague, that 
patients will not be able to, without this authority of some cap, 
obtain a fair allocation of these proceeds in some few cases. I myself 
have a high confidence in the bar and the courts to exercise equity and 
fairness. In some instances, it might not prevail.
  We have studied cases here where some lawyers are getting $30,000 per 
hour, in some of these tobacco cases. Mind you, $30,000 per hour. I 
just think it is time that we, the Congress of the United States, do 
what we can within the framework of our constitutional law to exercise 
and put a cap on that.
  I say to my good friend from Nevada, he has marked up an earlier 
version of my bill. And at least you started with a pretty good base 
here, but you took out the essence of it. We did remain with a one-
third fee, but giving the court the right to raise or lower this fee 
without any guidance whatsoever, even without the guidance of the word 
``reasonableness'' put into the proposal by my friend from Nevada.
  It seems to me that, while we are apart, we could possibly bridge our 
differences, if I could have the assurance that a patient, as we now 
call them under this proposed legislation--plaintiff, under ordinary 
circumstances--is given reasonable protections. I have tried to give 
the court the flexibility in those instances where, for example, if a 
trial took 2 or 3 weeks and then, through no real fault of the attorney 
or anyone else, there somehow was a mistrial--I have tried them myself. 
Jurors get ill, sick. For whatever reason, the court pronounces a 
mistrial and the attorney has to go back and try the whole case over 
again--that begins to add up in time and expense, and so forth. That 
attorney should be fairly compensated, and his client has to recognize 
that in rare and extraordinary cases the court can adjust the fee above 
the one-third. I find in here no guidance whatsoever.
  Under the Federal law, I laid down a formula which has been approved 
by the Supreme Court and is followed now in our Federal system.
  I further point out to my distinguished colleague from Nevada that 
the ERISA framework of laws governs much of the action in Federal 
court. And there ERISA puts an affirmative duty on a judge to review 
that attorney's fee. You are, in effect, modifying the framework of 
ERISA here, as I read it quickly, and not putting that affirmative duty 
on the court in the Federal system to review those attorney fees.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I apologize to my friend. Did the Senator 
from Virginia ask me a question?
  Mr. WARNER. Yes, I had been going on for some minutes now. I will go 
back over it again. I say to my good friend, you took an earlier 
version of my amendment, and in striking it out, No. 1, you left the 
one-third cap in, but you give the discretion to the judge to go up or 
down, with no guidelines by which that jurist goes up or down. In other 
words, there is no even standards of reasonableness. It could be 
implied, of course. But I looked upon the lodestar method, which is 
followed by the Federal courts in arriving at a fair and equitable fee 
situation. I just believe there is no guidance for the jurist in the 
proposal of my colleague.
  Mr. REID. I say to the Senator from Virginia, in every State court in 
America, every day judges are called upon to use their discretion to 
determine attorney's fees. In estate cases, in cases where people are 
hired to represent indigent defendants, there are a multitude of cases 
in which judges every day use their discretion to make awards of 
attorney's fees.
  Here, as the Senator has given a number of examples, if the judge, in 
rare instances, would find that somebody has been paid too much under 
the contract, he can take a look at that. Or there may be some very 
complicated appeal and maybe he would decide that there should be a 
little more there.
  Tobacco has nothing to do with this.
  Mr. WARNER. I missed the word. What has nothing to do with this?
  Mr. REID. The Senator talked about the tobacco litigation. I say that 
has nothing to do with this matter now before the Senate because these 
attorney's fees were very high, of course, and litigation results 
because these attorneys recovered not hundreds, thousands, millions, 
but billions of dollars. Tobacco attorneys were hired by State 
attorneys general. I don't think there is anything that I can ever even 
contemplate that would be the same in relation to tobacco and these HMO 
cases. I would say that we have pretty well formulated both of our 
positions.
  I respectfully say that the Senator from Virginia is taking away the 
discretion the State judges have. It makes it very complicated to 
determine attorney's fees. What we have come forward with is a process 
that is very specific, direct, and to the point, and leaves some 
discretion with State judges.
  (Mr. NELSON of Florida assumed the chair.)
  Mr. WARNER. I want to make it clear. I think it is clear in the 
amendment that the expenses are over and above the allocation of fees.
  Mr. REID. I took that directly from your original amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. I was also quite anxious to ensure that if a State has a 
framework of law regarding the award of attorney's fees, this does not 
apply. I think it is important that we honor those States that have a 
framework and laws which set attorney's fees, which is in my amendment. 
I am just trying to help you improve yours so that you prevail.
  Mr. REID. Well, I guess there is some reason that could be done. That 
is only going to complicate what we have. We are trying to give as much 
discretion as possible to State judges. I think they need that. I think 
one of the problems that I have with the Senator's

[[Page 12458]]

original amendment is it takes away from State law, from what States 
can do. It seems interesting to me that we are so in tune with States 
rights around here all the time, unless it comes to something dealing 
with injured parties--whether it is product liability cases or 
whatever. We suddenly want to take away what the States have worked on 
for all these decades. I think my friend's amendment takes away a lot 
of what we have with our States.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will read to my friend section (E) of my 
amendment, page 6:

       No preemption of state law.--Subparagraph (A) shall not 
     apply with respect to a cause of action under paragraph (1) 
     that is brought in a State that has a law or framework of 
     laws with respect to the amount of an attorney's contingency 
     fee that may be incurred for the representation of a 
     participant or beneficiary--

  And so forth. In other words, if the State has a framework of State 
laws, we in the Congress should not be trying to amend them, as I fear 
you are doing through an omission in yours. I have protected it in 
mine.
  Mr. REID. Well, I understand what the Senator's intent is. When you 
are looking for intent, you want to be as precise and direct as 
possible. I respectfully say we should get on with the vote. I think we 
have said everything, but maybe not everyone has said it. You and I 
have.
  Mr. WARNER. Let me point out one other thing. Again, there is a 
difference as to how these things are treated under Federal and State. 
As I said, ERISA gives certain protections that are involved in the 
Federal court. There Federal law requires relief grievance under ERISA 
and that is not found in my friend's amendment. You say it is implicit 
in every court in the land; therefore, it is not needed to be 
expressed. Is that your point?
  Mr. REID. The reason we took your basic amendment and made it 
directly to the point as to the one-third is it becomes too complicated 
for a court to determine attorney's fees based on the complicated 
program you have set up. Ours is simple and direct. In rare instances, 
a judge can step in and raise them or lower them.
  Mr. WARNER. I wanted to make sure they were explicit. That is my 
view. We have a difference of opinion on that.
  Mr. President, I will soon suggest the absence of a quorum so I have 
some period of time to reflect on perhaps other suggestions I might 
have. I am willing to allow these amendments to be laid aside if the 
Senator would agree to proceed with others.
  Mr. REID. We have been laying aside things so long----
  Mr. WARNER. If that is of no help, we need not do that.
  Mr. REID. I have no problem having a quorum call and we can talk. I 
really think we have to move on. I am willing to take my chances, 
whatever they might be. Other people are waiting around to offer 
amendments. We should move on if we can.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I am prepared to move forward with an 
amendment, if that is desired by my two colleagues, while you have your 
discussions. If you want to go into a quorum call, we will wait.
  Mr. REID. I would be happy to set these two amendments aside and let 
my friend from Tennessee, who offered probably the best elucidation on 
attorney's fees today--No. 1, he was concise and to the point. I think 
probably both of these are unconstitutional. I am willing to go 
forward.
  I ask unanimous consent that the two amendments by Senators Reid and 
Warner be set aside and that the Senator from Tennessee be allowed to 
call up an amendment. The Senator's amendment is on the improved list, 
correct?
  Mr. THOMPSON. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendments are laid aside.
  The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 853

 (Purpose: To clarify the law which applies in a State cause of action)

  Mr. THOMPSON. I send to the desk an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Thompson] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 853.
       On page 170, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:
       ``(9) Choice of law.--A cause of action brought under 
     paragraph (1) shall be governed by the law (including choice 
     of law rules) of the State in which the plaintiff resides.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I let the amendment be read because it 
is probably the shortest amendment that will be considered tonight. It 
is very simple and straightforward. Basically, what it says is that in 
these lawsuits that we are dealing with, we apply the law of the State 
of residence and citizenship of the plaintiff in this case.
  Let's go back just a bit and understand the lawsuit scheme that we 
have created by this litigation. We have created a Federal cause of 
action in Federal court for matters that are essentially contract; and 
we have created a State cause of action in State court for matters that 
have to do with medically reviewable situations.
  What that has left us with is the ability of a claimant to bring a 
State court claim in any State where the defendant is doing business. 
If you have a medical insurer and they are doing business in several 
States, even though you live in Tennessee, you could bring your lawsuit 
in any number of States where that insurer is doing business. That is 
simply known as forum shopping.
  The reason people do that is different States have different laws in 
terms of limitations on recovery. They have different rules of 
evidence. Some allow punitive damages--most do. Some cap those punitive 
damages. Some don't allow punitive damages at all. So I don't believe 
we want to create a situation where if we are going to have this 
liberal litigation scheme that we have set up, that we allow it to 
occur anywhere in the country, which might be the case with regard to 
some big defendants.
  Now, employers in some cases are going to be defendants also, I 
believe it is quite clear. You not only have the insurance companies, 
but you also have the employers to look at and to see whether or not 
they are doing business in these various States and, if they are, then 
you could bring your lawsuit in any of those States in which they are 
doing business. I don't think that serves the purposes that we are 
trying to serve with this legislation.
  Therefore, we have the authority, and I think it would be a wise 
exercise of our authority and discretion, to limit those lawsuits. If 
you are from the State of Tennessee and you have a legitimate claim and 
you want to bring a lawsuit, you ought to be bound by the law in the 
State from which you come. You should not be able to forum shop.
  Now, there might be some Federal causes of action that are also of 
the medically reviewable kind. We have been talking in this debate for 
several days about State causes of action, but what we are really 
dealing with is the laws of those States. They are causes of action 
based on the laws of individual States. So if a person wants to bring 
his lawsuit, he can still bring it in Massachusetts if he lives in 
Tennessee, but he is bound by the law of Tennessee.
  If there is a diversity situation in Federal court, where the Federal 
court has jurisdiction and you have a doing-business requirement 
satisfied as far as the corporate defendant is concerned, for example, 
you have diversity. You still are bound by the law of your home State. 
So that would prevent forum jumping.
  I believe this is desirable. I heard several expressions of agreement 
with the proposition we did not want to create a system of forum 
shopping in this litigation. We are going to have this law apply to all 
50 States. There will be lawsuits produced in all 50 States, and all 50 
States have laws that will be applicable in the suits wherever they are 
brought. A citizen ought to be bound by the laws of his or her State 
and not be able to shop all over the country for a potentially better 
situation than what they have in their State. It is a State cause of 
action. They should be bound by the laws of their home State.

[[Page 12459]]

  That is the amendment. I hope my colleagues will see the wisdom of it 
and will reach agreement on it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Tennessee, his 
argument is persuasive enough that all the managers on our side left 
the floor, so I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. AKAKA. 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. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be 
permitted to speak as in morning business for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Akaka are located in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I express great appreciation also for the 
Senator's strong support for our Patients' Bill of Rights. This has 
been an issue in which he has taken a great personal interest. He has 
been one of the strong supporters of this legislation for many, many 
years. Although he has not been a member of our committee, this is a 
matter I know he cares deeply about. He has been a strong supporter of 
all the amendments that have protected patients, and I don't think 
there has been a member who has been a stronger advocate for the 
patients and their rights than our good friend, the Senator from 
Hawaii. I thank him very much for his statement and all the work he has 
done to help bring the bill to where it is.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Nevada will 
modify his amendment and we will have a voice vote, and the Senator 
from Tennessee will have an amendment agreed to, also. Hopefully, we 
can dispose of those two amendments right now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.


                     Amendment No. 849, As Modified

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I call up amendment numbered 849 and I 
send a modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
laid aside.
  The amendment will be so modified.
  The amendment (No. 849), as modified, is as follows:

       Subtitle C of title I is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     SEC. 122. GENETIC INFORMATION.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Family member.--The term ``family member'' means with 
     respect to an individual--
       (A) the spouse of the individual;
       (B) a dependent child of the individual, including a child 
     who is born to or placed for adoption with the individual; 
     and
       (C) all other individuals related by blood to the 
     individual or the spouse or child described in subparagraph 
     (A) or (B).
       (2) Genetic information.--The term ``genetic information'' 
     means information about genes, gene products, or inherited 
     characteristics that may derive from an individual or a 
     family member of such individual (including information about 
     a request for or the receipt of genetic services by such 
     individual or a family member of such individual).
       (3) Genetic services.--The term ``genetic services'' means 
     health services, including genetic tests, provided to obtain, 
     assess, or interpret genetic information for diagnostic and 
     therapeutic purposes, and for genetic education and 
     counseling.
       (4) Genetic test.--The term ``genetic test'' means the 
     analysis of human DNA, RNA, chromosomes, proteins, and 
     certain metabolites, including analysis of genotypes, 
     mutations, phenotypes, or karyotypes, for the purpose of 
     predicting risk of disease in asymptomatic or undiagnosed 
     individuals. Such term does not include a physical test, such 
     as a chemical, blood, or urine analysis of an individual, 
     including a cholesterol test, or a physical exam of the 
     individual, in order to detect symptoms, clinical signs, or a 
     diagnosis of disease.
       (5) Group health plan, health insurance issuer.--The terms 
     ``group health plan'' and ``health insurance issuer'' include 
     a third party administrator or other person acting for or on 
     behalf of such plan or issuer.
       (6) Predictive genetic information.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``predictive genetic 
     information'' means--
       (i) information about an individual's genetic tests;
       (ii) information about genetic tests of family members of 
     the individual; or
       (iii) information about the occurrence of a disease or 
     disorder in family members.
       (B) Limitations.--The term ``predictive genetic 
     information'' shall not include--
       (i) information about the sex or age of the individual;
       (ii) information about chemical, blood, or urine analyses 
     of the individual, including cholesterol tests, unless these 
     analyses are genetic tests, as defined in paragraph (4); or
       (iii) information about physical exams of the individual, 
     and other information relevant to determining the current 
     health status of the individual.
       (b) Nondiscrimination.--
       (1) No enrollment restriction for genetic services.--A 
     group health plan, and a health insurance issuer offering 
     health insurance coverage, shall not establish rules for 
     eligibility (including continued eligibility) of any 
     individual to enroll under the terms of the plan or coverage 
     based on genetic information (or information about a request 
     for or the receipt of genetic services by such individual or 
     a family member of such individual) in relation to the 
     individual or a dependent of the individual.
       (2) No discrimination in rate based on predictive genetic 
     information.--A group health plan, and a health insurance 
     issuer offering health insurance coverage, shall not deny 
     eligibility or adjust premium or contribution rates on the 
     basis of predictive genetic information concerning an 
     individual (or information about a request for or the receipt 
     of genetic services by such individual or a family member of 
     such individual).
       (c) Collection of Predictive Genetic Information.--
       (1) Limitation on requesting or requiring predictive 
     genetic information.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a 
     group health plan, or a health insurance issuer offering 
     health insurance coverage, shall not request or require 
     predictive genetic information concerning an individual or a 
     family member of the individual (including information about 
     a request for or the receipt of genetic services by such 
     individual or a family member of such individual).
       (2) Information needed for diagnosis, treatment, or 
     payment.--
       (A) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a group 
     health plan, or a health insurance issuer offering health 
     insurance coverage, that provides health care items and 
     services to an individual or dependent may request (but may 
     not require) that such individual or dependent disclose, or 
     authorize the collection or disclosure of, predictive genetic 
     information for purposes of diagnosis, treatment, or payment 
     relating to the provision of health care items and services 
     to such individual or dependent.
       (B) Notice of confidentiality practices and description of 
     safeguards.--As a part of a request under subparagraph (A), 
     the group health plan, or a health insurance issuer offering 
     health insurance coverage, shall provide to the individual or 
     dependent a description of the procedures in place to 
     safeguard the confidentiality, as described in subsection 
     (d), of such predictive genetic information.
       (d) Confidentiality With Respect to Predictive Genetic 
     Information.--
       (1) Notice of confidentiality practices.--A group health 
     plan, or a health insurance issuer offering health insurance 
     coverage, shall post or provide, in writing and in a clear 
     and conspicuous manner, notice of the plan or issuer's 
     confidentiality practices, that shall include--
       (A) a description of an individual's rights with respect to 
     predictive genetic information;
       (B) the procedures established by the plan or issuer for 
     the exercise of the individual's rights; and
       (C) a description of the right to obtain a copy of the 
     notice of the confidentiality practices required under this 
     subsection.
       (2) Establishment of safeguards.--A group health plan, or a 
     health insurance issuer offering health insurance coverage, 
     shall establish and maintain appropriate administrative, 
     technical, and physical safeguards to protect the 
     confidentiality, security, accuracy, and integrity of 
     predictive genetic information created, received, obtained, 
     maintained, used, transmitted, or disposed of by such plan or 
     issuer.
       (3) Compliance with certain standards.--With respect to the 
     establishment and maintenance of safeguards under this 
     subsection or subsection (c)(2)(B), a group health plan, or a 
     health insurance issuer offering health insurance coverage, 
     shall be deemed to be in compliance with such subsections if 
     such plan or issuer is in compliance with the standards 
     promulgated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     under--
       (A) part C of title XI of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1320d et seq.); or
       (B) section 264(c) of Health Insurance Portability and 
     Accountability Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 1320d-2 note).
       (e) Special Rule in Case of Genetic Information.--With 
     respect to health insurance coverage offered by a health 
     insurance issuer, the provisions of this section relating to 
     genetic information (including information about a request 
     for or the receipt of genetic services by an individual or a 
     family

[[Page 12460]]

     member of such individual) shall not be construed to 
     supersede any provision of State law that establishes, 
     implements, or continues in effect a standard, requirement, 
     or remedy that more completely--
       (1) protects the confidentiality of genetic information 
     (including information about a request for or the receipt of 
     genetic services by an individual or a family member of such 
     individual) or the privacy of an individual or a family 
     member of the individual with respect to genetic information 
     (including information about a request for or the receipt of 
     genetic services by the individual or a family member of such 
     individual); or
       (2) prohibits discrimination on the basis of genetic 
     information than does this section.

       At the end of title II, insert the following:

     SEC. 203. ELIMINATION OF OPTION OF NON-FEDERAL GOVERNMENTAL 
                   PLANS TO BE EXCEPTED FROM REQUIREMENTS 
                   CONCERNING GENETIC INFORMATION.

       Section 2721(b)(2) of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 300gg-21(b)(2)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``If the plan 
     sponsor'' and inserting ``Except as provided in subparagraph 
     (D), if the plan sponsor''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) Election not applicable to requirements concerning 
     genetic information.--The election described in subparagraph 
     (A) shall not be available with respect to the provisions of 
     subsections (b), (c), and (d) of section 122 of the 
     Bipartisan Patient Protection Act and the provisions of 
     section 2702(b) to the extent that the subsections and 
     section apply to genetic information (or information about a 
     request for or the receipt of genetic services by an 
     individual or a family member of such individual).''.

  Mr. ENSIGN. I ask that the yeas and nays be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I understand both sides have agreed to 
this amendment. It has to do with genetic testing. We debated it last 
night. I appreciate Senators Kennedy, Gregg, and McCain working 
together, along with the White House, to make sure we are not 
discriminating against people based on genetics; that people with the 
breast cancer gene or colon cancer gene, or whatever gene they may have 
been born with, will not be discriminated against in the future. I 
appreciate everybody working with us on this matter.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are prepared to accept this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 849), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was 
agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           amendment no. 853

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. THOMPSON. I believe I am correct in saying my amendment has been 
accepted and it is agreeable to have a voice vote.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Thompson 
amendment, No. 853.
  The amendment (No. 853) was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Amendment No. 833, As Further Modified

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask that the amendment of the Senator from 
Virginia be called up, the yeas and nays be withdrawn, and it be agreed 
to by voice vote.
  Mr. WARNER. Reserving the right to object, should we lay out a full 
understanding of our agreement?
  Mr. REID. I think we should just vote.
  Mr. WARNER. Your amendment is withdrawn?
  Mr. REID. Yes.
  Mr. WARNER. I send a modification to the desk.
  Mr. REID. This is the Warner substitute.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, my modification has been sent to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 833), as further modified, is as follows:

 (Purpose: To limit the amount of attorneys' fees in a cause of action 
                        brought under this Act)

       On page 154, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       ``(11) Limitation on attorneys' fees.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, or any arrangement, agreement, or contract regarding an 
     attorney's fee, the amount of an attorney's contingency fee 
     allowable for a cause of action brought pursuant to this 
     subsection shall not exceed \1/3\ of the total amount of the 
     plaintiff's recovery (not including the reimbursement of 
     actual out-of-pocket expenses of the attorney).
       ``(B) Determination by district court.--The last Federal 
     district court in which the action was pending upon the final 
     disposition, including all appeals, of the action shall have 
     jurisdiction to review the attorney's fee to ensure that the 
     fee is a reasonable one.
       On page 170, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:
       ``(9) Limitation on attorneys' fees.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, or any arrangement, agreement, or contract regarding an 
     attorney's fee, the amount of an attorney's contingency fee 
     allowable for a cause of action brought under paragraph (1) 
     shall not exceed \1/3\ of the total amount of the plaintiff's 
     recovery (not including the reimbursement of actual out-of-
     pocket expenses of the attorney).
       ``(B) Determination by court.--The last court in which the 
     action was pending upon the final disposition, including all 
     appeals, of the action may review the attorney's fee to 
     ensure that the fee is a reasonable one.
       ``(E) No preemption of state law.--Subparagraph (A) shall 
     not apply with respect to a cause of action under paragraph 
     (1) that is brought in a State that has a law or framework of 
     laws with respect to the amount of an attorney's contingency 
     fee that may be incurred for the representation of a 
     participant or beneficiary (or the estate of such participant 
     or beneficiary) who brings such a cause of action.

  Mr. WARNER. We have worked it out together. I ask that the yeas and 
nays be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the yeas and nays are 
vitiated.
  Mr. WARNER. I understand we will proceed to a voice vote and the 
amendment of my distinguished colleague will be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
(No. 833), as further modified.
  The amendment (No. 833), as further modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my distinguished colleague from Nevada.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and move to 
lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                      Amendment No. 852, Withdrawn

  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent my amendment be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. As I understand it, we are down to two amendments on our 
side: Senator Kyl's and Senator Frist's, which will be the substitute.
  I hope we can get a time agreement on Senator Kyl. How much time does 
the Senator need? He does not know. And Senator Carper, on the other 
side, is going to make a statement and maybe offer an amendment.
  Before they go, since people are a little confused, so they can get 
ready, we are heading toward the finish line. Before we get to the 
finish line, I want to mention that a lot of people do a lot of work 
around here. They are called the staff. They are extraordinary. I 
especially want to thank my staff, Senator Kennedy's staff, Senator 
Frist's staff, who have worked so hard on this. I am sure there are 
many folks on the other side, but I specifically want to thank 
Stephanie Monroe of my staff, Colleen Cresanti, Steve Irizarry, Kim 
Monk, and Jessica Roberts for all they have done to make this process 
move smoothly for me and allow me to be successful. They really have 
put in extraordinary hours. I greatly appreciate

[[Page 12461]]

it. They are exceptional people, and we thank them very much.
  Now I suspect the Senator from Arizona is probably ready.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. If I may say to my friend from Arizona, we have not seen 
his amendment. If we could see it? I wonder if, in the meantime, we 
could have the Senator from Delaware make a statement.
  Mr. KYL. Might the Senator from Nevada yield? I have given a copy 
both to Senator McCain and also to Senator Gregg to give to you. I am 
sorry if you do not have it yet. Maybe Senator Kennedy has a copy.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I just received this a minute ago. I am just reviewing 
it. We will be prepared to go ahead in a few moments. I know the 
Senator from Delaware has waited. I understand it is a short statement. 
Then I hope we go to the amendment and we will be prepared to enter a 
short time agreement or whatever limitation to which the Senator from 
Arizona will be agreeable.
  Mr. REID. I ask the Senator from Delaware, through the Chair, how 
much time he wishes to take.
  Mr. CARPER. No more than 15 minutes.
  Mr. REID. The Senator from Delaware wishes to speak for up to 15 
minutes. I ask unanimous consent he speak at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Delaware.


                           Amendment No. 855

  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Carper] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 855.

  Mr. CARPER. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

                (Purpose: To disallow punitive damages)

       On page 153, strike line 9 and all that follows through 
     page 154, line 2, and insert the following:
       ``(10) Statutory damages.--The remedies set forth in this 
     subsection shall be the exclusive remedies for any cause of 
     action brought under this subsection. Such remedies shall 
     include economic and noneconomic damages, but shall not 
     include any punitive damages.

  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, the amendment before us, which I will ask 
to be withdrawn in a few moments, is one Senator Landrieu and I offer, 
and I know has the support of a number of Members of this body from 
both sides of the aisle.
  A great deal of effort has gone into crafting a compromise with 
respect to the appropriate venue, Federal or State, for bringing 
litigation in cases where an HMO has acted inappropriately.
  As I have studied this issue over the last week or so, the way the 
underlying bill assigns venue for State action and for action that is 
more appropriate in the Federal courts, I have come to believe that the 
sponsors of the legislation figured it out just right. When it comes to 
determining damages that might be assigned in cases brought in Federal 
courts, I personally have concluded that there should not be a cap with 
respect to economic damages.
  I further agree with the approach that is taken in the underlying 
bill, that in cases where noneconomic damages are sought in Federal 
courts, particularly in cases where children may be involved who are 
not working, who do not have a livelihood, or in cases where a spouse--
perhaps a woman, but it could easily be a man--who is not in the 
workforce and stays at home with a family, we may not, if we cap 
noneconomic damages, be really fair to that young person or to the 
spouse who is working from the home.
  However, with respect to damages at the Federal level, as they 
pertain to punitive claims, I am not comfortable with the approach that 
is embodied in the underlying bill. Senator Breaux and Senator Frist 
have offered an approach which I think is better in this regard, and I 
just want to mention it. It deals with whether or not there should be 
punitive damages awarded on actions taken in Federal courts. I conclude 
they have it right and those punitive damages should not be allowed in 
the Federal courts.
  Having said that, for actions that are brought in State courts, the 
laws and rules of the States should prevail. If there are caps in the 
State courts, that is the business of the States, and that is 
appropriate. If there are no caps on punitive damages in actions 
brought before the State courts, that is appropriate as well.
  As we try to find the compromise here, I believe the underlying bill 
has it right with the appropriate middle ground on caps and venue. I 
believe the underlying bill has it right with respect to damages in a 
Federal action: No caps on either economic or noneconomic damages. I 
also believe the underlying bill has it right with respect to the 
proper venue, State versus Federal.
  I believe my friend from Louisiana and my friend from Tennessee have 
a better idea with respect to punitive damages and they simply should 
not be allowed in Federal court.
  Senator Landrieu is probably en route to the Chamber now to say a few 
words with respect to the amendment. I do not see that she has arrived 
yet. If I may, I would like to just reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I want to add a word for my colleague 
from Delaware. He and I have been working together on this legislation 
since it came to the floor and beforehand. He has a very well thought 
out position. Some of his positions I do not entirely share, but he has 
been very careful and very thoughtful about all these issues and has 
been working very vigorously with us on this legislation. He cares 
deeply about patient protection. He cares deeply about making sure that 
people all over this country have real patient's rights. He cares 
deeply about the uninsured. This is an issue he and I have talked about 
many times. He has made enormous contributions to the legislation that 
is now on the floor.
  I thank the Senator from Delaware for all of his work in this regard, 
and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Let me say, too, to my friend from North Carolina, I 
thank him very much for his overstatement of my contribution. He is 
very generous.
  I say back to you, you have been just a terrific manager and 
cosponsor of this legislation, and thank you for giving us the 
opportunity to work closely with you and your staff.
  That having been said, I still do not see Senator Landrieu joining us 
on the floor. Were she here, she would speak in support of this 
amendment, but would go on to add some concerns she has with respect to 
capping noneconomic damages, particularly as they pertain, as I 
referred to earlier, to young people and spouses who may be staying at 
home and are not in the workplace.
  Mr. EDWARDS. I thank my colleague.


                      Amendment No. 855 Withdrawn

  Mr. CARPER. That having been said, Mr. President, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be withdrawn, and I yield the remainder of 
my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. I rise to say I wish we were voting on the amendment of 
the Senator from Delaware. I believe the punitive damages issue in this 
bill is a major issue.
  I understand the decision not to go forward. We know the probable 
outcome of the vote. But there is no question in my mind that his 
amendment would cause a movement in the right direction on the issue of 
punitive damages. This bill, as all of us have pointed out who have 
concerns about it, is going to be candy land for lawyers. One of the 
reasons it is going to be is because of the punitive damage language

[[Page 12462]]

which allows forum shopping for the best punitive damage opportunities; 
whereas, under today's law, punitive damages are radically distributed, 
and should be because the purpose is to create quality health care, and 
punitive damage awards would drive up insurance costs. That is passed 
on to the consumer, which means fewer people can afford insurance.
  As a practical matter, I want to say that I think the Senator from 
Delaware is on the right track, and I hope the conference will listen 
to his comments.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? I say to my friend 
from New Hampshire that my fervent hope is that when the bill passes 
the Senate and later the House, and the conference committee is 
established, the conferees will have a full opportunity to revisit this 
issue. My hope is that the final compromise will reflect this 
amendment.
  I also want to express to the Senator from New Hampshire my heartfelt 
thanks for the leadership he has provided to the Republican side of the 
aisle on this issue, and my appreciation for a chance to work with him, 
as well as the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Thank you.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator from Delaware.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 854

  Mr. Kyl. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 854.

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

           (Purpose: To permit choices in costs and damages)

       On page 156, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:
       ``(17) Damages options.--
       ``(A) In general.--In addition to plans or coverage that 
     are subject to this Act, a plan or issuer may offer, and a 
     participant or beneficiary may accept, a plan or coverage 
     that provides for one or more of the following remedies, in 
     which case the damages authorized by this section shall not 
     apply:
       ``(i) Equitable relief as provided for in subsection 
     (a)(1)(B).
       ``(ii) Unlimited economic damages, including reasonable 
     attorneys fees.
       ``(B) Protection of the regulation of quality of medical 
     care under state law.--Nothing in this paragraph shall be 
     construed to preclude any action under State law against a 
     person or entity for liability or vicarious liability with 
     respect to the delivery of medical care. A claim that is 
     based on or otherwise relates to a group health plan's 
     administration or determination of a claim for benefits 
     (notwithstanding the definition contained in paragraph (2)) 
     shall not be deemed to be the delivery of medical care under 
     any State law for purposes of this section. Any such claim 
     shall be maintained exclusively under this section.''.
       On page 170, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:
       ``(9) Damages options.--
       ``(A) In general.--In addition to plans or coverage that 
     are subject to this Act, a plan or issuer may offer, and a 
     participant or beneficiary may accept, a plan or coverage 
     that provides for one or more of the following remedies, in 
     which case the damages authorized by this section shall not 
     apply:
       ``(i) Equitable relief as provided for in section 
     502(a)(1)(B).
       ``(ii) Unlimited economic damages, including reasonable 
     attorneys fees.
       ``(B) Protection of the regulation of quality of medical 
     care under state law.--Nothing in this paragraph shall be 
     construed to preclude any action under State law against a 
     person or entity for liability or vicarious liability with 
     respect to the delivery of medical care. A claim that is 
     based on or otherwise relates to a group health plan's 
     administration or determination of a claim for benefits 
     (notwithstanding the definition contained in section 
     502(n)(2)) shall not be deemed to be the delivery of medical 
     care under any State law for purposes of this section. Any 
     such claim shall be maintained exclusively under section 
     502.''

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, it has been requested that the time agreement 
on this amendment be 30 minutes on my side and 10 minutes in 
opposition, with an up-or-down vote at the conclusion of the debate. I 
propound that unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, that is fine 
with no second degrees in order. Is that right?
  Mr. KYL. That would be my understanding. I thank the Senator from 
Nevada.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator so modify his request?
  Mr. KYL. I do indeed modify my unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the consumer health care 
choice amendment. This amendment would amend section 302 of the 
underlying legislation to provide that employers and health plan 
issuers would be free to offer, and participants and beneficiaries free 
to choose, health plans with two remedy options, in addition to the 
underlying plan: equitable relief--the benefit or value of the benefit; 
and unlimited economic damages.
  The bill provides damages as provided under S. 1052 unlimited 
economic and non-economic, and up to $5 million in punitive damages.
  This amendment applies only to the new remedies established by S. 
1052 for Federal contract actions and state ``medically reviewable'' 
claims. It explicitly protects the regulation of medical care delivery 
under state law.
  The problem: Increased premium costs lead to greater numbers of 
uninsured. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that S. 1052 would 
result in a 4.2 percent increase in premiums costs. This predicted 
increase is in addition to the 10-12 percent increase employers are 
already facing this year.
  The CBO report illustrates the cold truth about a critical, but often 
overlooked, public policy issue: The irrefutable link between health-
care premium increases and the number of Americans without insurance. 
As the Congress debates the various health-care proposals, we must keep 
this linkage in mind.
  Supporters of S. 1052 are quick to claim that their bill will improve 
health care, but not so quick to admit that it will also raise costs 
and cause the ranks of the uninsured to swell. We know this will 
happen, because cost increases will cause some employers to stop 
offering health-care coverage, making insurance unaffordable for more 
Americans. This fact is politically inconvenient.
  We should keep an important statistic in mind. According to the Lewin 
Group consulting firm, for each one percent premium increase, an 
additional 300,000 citizens lose their insurance.
  As I mentioned, the Congressional Budget Office predicts that S. 1058 
will increase premiums by 4.2 percent. A premium increase of this 
amount would cause about 1.3 million Americans to become uninsured as a 
result of S. 1052. The Office of Management and Budget recently 
predicted that between 4-6 million more Americans would become 
uninsured as a result of S. 1052.
  How can we call this a Patients Bill of Rights when it will result in 
fewer patients?
  I believe our first goal should be to ``do no harm''; or, at a 
minimum, to reduce the harm, as my amendment will do.
  My amendment would allow employers or plans to offer two options for 
employees to voluntarily choose, in addition to the general plan 
covered by this bill, Option No. 1: A low premium policy with a remedy 
limited to the benefit, or the value of the benefit. Option No. 2: A 
mid level premium policy that would allow for full economic damages 
only.
  There are in addition to the higher premium policy that would allow 
for the full range of damages provided under S. 1052.
  This amendment should be appealing to employers and plans as a way to 
control their costs and appealing to employees as a way to hold down 
their premiums by voluntarily limiting their right to sue.
  Data from the CBO and the Kaiser Family Foundation estimate that S. 
1052 would cost a typical family with health coverage roughly $300 per 
year.

[[Page 12463]]

Certainly, we should promise not to pass legislation that would reduce 
or completely consume the $300 or $600 rebate that many Americans will 
be receiving sometime this summer as a result of the tax-relief bill 
just signed into law by President Bush.
  If adopted, this amendment would afford Americans a chance to recoup 
some of the loss imposed by S. 1052.
  Some have argued that so-called patients' rights legislation that 
includes an unlimited right to sue is overwhelmingly popular with 
Americans. It is worth noting that a Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard 
School of Public Health Survey from January 2001 asked the following 
question to voters: ``Would you favor a law that would raise the cost 
of health plans and lead some companies to stop offering health care 
plans to their workers?'' In answer to this question, only 30 percent 
voiced support, and 70 percent voiced opposition to such a law.
  Fortunately, we don't have to force people to make that choice. We 
can give them a choice. For those who prefer the right to sue and are 
willing to pay they have their plan. For those who are willing to forgo 
lawsuit, they can buy their plan. And, state remedies apply in any 
event--so called ``quality of care'' suits.
  Certainly, enhancing a patient's right to sue is cold comfort to 
those who currently can't afford health insurance, or those who lose 
their coverage due to increased costs.
  Clearly, the proposed legislation to reform health care comes with a 
steep price tag attached. Before we commit to passing legislation, 
perhaps we should first promise not to pass a bill that will lead to 
more uninsured Americans.
  My amendment would merely reduce this price tag, and reduce the harm 
we will do by enacting S. 1052.
  This amendment is very simple. I ask for my colleagues' attention 
because I can't imagine that anyone would want to oppose this amendment 
if the concern is really about patients rather than lawyers.
  Let me restate that. If we are really concerned about health care for 
patients rather than fees for lawyers, this amendment will probably do 
more to provide that we keep people insured than anything else we have 
done during the last week because it provides for a simple option.
  For any plan of an employer that provides coverage under this bill, 
they may also offer another option. That option is a plan that would 
enable their employees to forego damages in court. It is that simple. 
You can't just do that. You have to be providing a plan that is covered 
by this act, so that the full benefits, including all of the rights to 
go to court and file lawsuits for damages, are preserved. You still 
have the right to choose that policy.
  We all know that policy is going to cost more money. The reason it is 
going to cost more money is because lawsuits drive up the cost of 
insurance, which drives up premiums, which means that fewer employers 
can pay for insurance, which means that fewer employees are insured. 
And that is what is concerning all of us.
  This amendment makes it possible to offer, in addition to the higher 
cost policy, a lower cost policy that would say you can forego your 
rights to litigation. You can just receive the benefits that ERISA 
provides for today. Those benefits are health care that you contracted 
for--or the dollar value of that health care.
  There is a second option in here. That is a limited one, which is you 
could also go to court and get unlimited economic damages, but no pain 
and suffering damages or punitive damages. Maybe some companies would 
write that kind of a policy, too. But either of those policies would 
have a lesser premium than the policy that would be offered as the 
underlying plan under this legislation.
  To some who say there might be a case where there is a quality of 
care decision which just needs to go to court, and damages need to be 
collected, my amendment specifically protects all of the State court 
litigation that is currently developing about quality of care.
  Even if an employee exercised an option to buy this lower cost 
policy, that employee would still have all of the rights of litigation 
for damages in State court.
  Some have said: Isn't this a little bit similar to the Enzi 
amendment? The answer is no. The Enzi amendment said if a particular 
group of employees were merely offered a specific kind of policy, they 
wouldn't be covered by the act. That is not my amendment. All employers 
are covered by the act under my amendment. It is just if they offer a 
plan to their employees, they may in addition to that plan offer this 
lower cost alternative.
  Why do I offer this?
  As we know, the Congressional Budget Office predicts that the 
underlying bill would result in a 4.2-percent increase in premium 
costs. This is in addition to the 10- or 12-percent increase that 
employers are already facing this year.
  The Congressional Budget Office report illustrates the cold truth 
that has been overlooked in this debate; that is, the irrefutable link 
between health care premium increases and the number of Americans 
without insurance.
  There is a study by the Lewin Group, a consulting firm, which says 
that for each 1 percent of premium increase, an additional 300,000 
citizens lose their insurance.
  We have CBO's estimate that the cost of premiums is going to increase 
4.2 percent. We have a study that says every 1 percent, an additional 
300,000 people lose their insurance.
  Do the math. Under this bill, more than a million Americans are going 
to lose their insurance if something isn't done to keep the cost of 
those premiums down.
  The Office of Management and Budget recently predicted that between 4 
million and 6 million more Americans would become uninsured as a result 
of S. 1052.
  That is where this amendment comes in. It is probably the best way to 
ensure that we can get premiums down over an alternative that doesn't 
have as much risk for the insurer, and, therefore, won't have to have 
as high a premium.
  But I reiterate, it is not in lieu of the benefits that we are 
promising under this bill but, rather, in addition to. It is an option.
  For this to occur, three voluntary decisions would have to be made.
  First of all, some insurance companies would have to develop a 
product that they might offer to employers or plans to sell for their 
lower cost option.
  Second, employers would have to decide that in addition to the plan 
offered under the bill, they would offer one of these lower cost 
alternatives that is on the market.
  Third, employees would have to decide to take advantage of that lower 
cost option.
  It is all a matter of choice. Nobody is making anybody do anything. 
None of the benefits under the legislation go away at all, nor is the 
State court remedying.
  It seems to me, since it is all voluntary, that there is nothing 
mandatory but it gives us one opportunity to reduce premium costs. We 
all ought to be supportive of this proposal.
  I ask that the remaining time that I have not be yielded but, rather, 
see if there are any others who might wish to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if Senator Kennedy will allow me to speak at 
this point, let me say, first of all, that I think progress is being 
made. Senator Reid has been working. Everybody has been trying to 
cooperate. I believe, after this very important amendment, we will have 
the substitute, and hopefully we would be ready to go to final passage.
  I don't want to usurp the majority's role here, but I want people to 
realize that we are to the point where perhaps we can begin to wrap 
this up.
  I thank Senator Kyl for agreeing to not have lengthy debate. He feels 
very strongly about it, and this is certainly a very good and valuable 
alternative.
  I heard Senator Bond of Missouri say repeatedly that when it comes to

[[Page 12464]]

health care, we should make it available, affordable, and safe. One of 
our greatest concerns about this bill in its present form is health 
insurance for patients, and what they have available through managed 
care is not going to be affordable. Rates are going to go up. They are 
going to lose coverage for a variety of reasons. So it is a question of 
availability and affordability.
  This is a good, viable alternative. This provides a low-cost option 
that will, hopefully, result in more people keeping their coverage. But 
it is an option. It is not in place of; it is in addition to what will 
be available otherwise. It just gives plans the option of offering a 
low-cost alternative that forgoes lawsuit damages under the law. The 
State court would still have the ``quality of care'' damage available. 
Those lawsuits would still be there. You don't replace that.
  So I want to emphasize, it is not in lieu of but it is in addition to 
the plans offered under the bill. This really is about patients, and it 
really is about the freedom to have a choice, to have an option to 
choose to have this coverage but not going to lawsuits later on. By 
paying less, they will be able to afford it. That will give them an 
option. I think this would be a very attractive way to make sure it is 
available and affordable.
  I would like to speak at greater length on this myself, but in the 
interest of time I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Arizona, Mr. 
Kyl, for his amendment, which is strikingly similar in concept--as he 
and I discussed off the floor earlier--to the Auto Choice proposal I 
have introduced each of the last two Congresses, cosponsored by Senator 
Moynihan and Senator Lieberman. 
  Essentially what is envisioned in these kinds of choice proposals is 
giving the consumer the option of opting out of the litigation lottery 
in return for a lower premium and lower cost.
  I want to ask the Senator from Arizona if it is his view that this is 
similar in concept to the Auto Choice measure that I just described 
that we have discussed off the floor.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if I may answer the question of the Senator 
from Kentucky, I am remiss for not acknowledging that my idea for this 
amendment came exactly from the proposal the Senator has just 
discussed. It seemed to me that if it worked well in that context, it 
would also work well in this context. I should have mentioned that 
earlier. I know the Senator did not ask the question to get credit, but 
credit certainly is due him for this idea.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I cannot announce the support of others, but I wanted 
to mention that on the Auto Choice bill there was also the support of 
Michael Dukakis, Joe Lieberman, Pat Moynihan, the Democratic Leadership 
Council, the New York Times, and the Washington Post.
  I cannot say for sure that they would support the amendment offered 
by the Senator from Arizona, but the concept he describes of giving the 
consumer the option--the consumer gets the option of leaving aside the 
litigation lottery in return for a lower premium and defined benefits 
provided for that lower premium. It does not really deny anybody. It 
does not deny them the right to sue. It does not put a cap on damages. 
It does not tell the lawyers what to charge. It simply says to the 
consumer: You have a choice.
  What the Senator from Arizona is suggesting is to take what is a 
sound idea for the automobile insurance market, Auto Choice, and apply 
it to the health insurance market.
  Under his amendment, employers would have the option of offering 
their employees up to two additional insurance choices. Given the 
additional causes of action permitted under this bill, I believe giving 
consumers the option not to participate in the personal injury 
litigation lottery is only appropriate.
  It is important to note, just like my Auto Choice option, choosing 
Senator Kyl's ``Health Choice'' option would be completely voluntary to 
both the employer and the employees. An employer who offers his 
employees health insurance would not be allowed to offer only the 
limited-litigation health policies. Nothing in the Kyl amendment would. 
The employer must offer the plans envisioned in the Kennedy-McCain 
bill.
  Therefore, nothing in the Kyl amendment would take away any right. It 
would merely allow consumers who don't want to sue their health 
insurance plan, a lower cost health insurance option.
  While we have made significant progress at improving this 
legislation, many of us on this side of the aisle have lingering 
concerns that this bill will dramatically increase the number of 
uninsured Americans. We ought do everything possible to minimize this 
impact and that is why I wholeheartedly endorse the proposal of the 
Senator from Arizona. Patients need more choices and should not be 
forced into a system of jackpot justice without their consent.
  As the Senator from Arizona has pointed out, we hope not to have a 
greater number of uninsured when this is all over. One of the great 
fears many of us have who are going to be voting against this bill is 
that that is exactly what the result of it will be. But the Senator 
from Arizona has astutely offered an amendment that will certainly 
provide an opportunity for a number of people to receive lower premiums 
and thereby, hopefully, reducing the increase in the number of 
uninsureds which so many of us fear.
  So I express my strong support for the Senator's amendment. I tell 
him, I think it is a very good idea. I hope the Senate will support it. 
It seems to me it is entirely consistent with the theme of the 
underlying bill. I commend the Senator from Arizona for his fine 
amendment.
  Mr. KYL. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as I listened to the proposal by the 
Senator from Arizona, the thought came to my mind about the right of an 
individual to waive rights. That is deeply ingrained as part of the law 
of the United States, so much so that when you talk about 
constitutional rights in a criminal case--where the rights are much 
more deep-seated, much more profound, based on the Constitution--that 
right to waive does exist.
  In a sense, what the Senator from Arizona is proposing is that an 
individual who seeks health insurance would have the right to waive 
certain rights, which is recognized in law.
  The keyword which I found persuasive in what the Senator from Arizona 
had to say was the word ``voluntary.'' I would add to that--I think 
this is part of his concept--that it be a knowing waiver--a voluntary, 
knowing waiver. And I would expect that, as part of that, the 
individual would have counsel to understand his rights, because you 
cannot understand your rights for damages--the complexities--unless you 
know what they are, and whatever may be said about lawyers on this 
floor, you need a lawyer to tell you what your rights are. Then the 
individual would be in a position to evaluate the reduction in 
premiums, and thereby which savings would be passed on to him for what 
he was giving up.
  In that context, I think the proposal passes muster.
  Mr. KYL. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I, too, thank the Senator from Arizona, Mr. 
Kyl, for bringing this amendment to us.
  This debate has been framed as though everybody had all of their 
insurance paid for by the company for which they work. I know that is 
not the case. Throughout America, most people participate in the cost 
of their insurance. So it is going to be very important for every 
individual who has to participate in the cost of their insurance to be 
searching, with their employer, for a lower cost way of doing it. This 
is one of those solutions. This is very innovative. It will fill a void 
we have left by doing the bill, particularly if the estimates are true 
on how much insurance is going to go up based on

[[Page 12465]]

this ability to sue. If it goes up dramatically, there are going to be 
a lot more people who are going to hope there is this kind of an 
alternative around.
  So I congratulate the Senator from Arizona for this approach.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I also join in congratulating the Senator 
from Arizona. This seems to be the most commonsense amendment we have 
seen since we have been discussing this issue. It provides choice and 
provides an opportunity for lower cost insurance, and it allows people 
to choose what they want to pay for, for what they get.
  So I urge support for the Senator's amendment and thank him for it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I also urge support for Senator Kyl's 
amendment because I think it deals with the essential nature of what 
this whole debate is about; that is, the tradeoff between coverage and 
cost. That is what the whole debate is about.
  Some would have us believe we can have additional coverage without 
additional cost. It cannot happen. Somebody pays the freight sooner or 
later. We all know it is going to result in additional health care 
costs.
  So what this amendment does is recognize that tradeoff, and it 
provides the individual the opportunity to make that choice--
recognizing that tradeoff--which results in a very good approach and a 
very good amendment.
  So I urge my colleagues to give serious consideration to supporting 
this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I join with my colleagues in congratulating 
Senator Kyl for bringing this amendment forward. It is exactly one of 
the items we need to improve this bill significantly. This bill has a 
lot of problems. We all know that. But an amendment such as Senator 
Kyl's will at least help it out in some parts. It will be very 
constructive to the whole process. I certainly hope my colleagues in 
the Senate will join in supporting it. It is the right amendment. I 
congratulate him for bringing it forward.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. How much time do we have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The opponents have 10 minutes under the 
previous order.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. President, having been on the floor for the better part of the 
last 8 or 9 days, I rarely have heard such wonderful statements and 
comments about any amendment as have been given to the Senator from 
Arizona. I have gone back and read it and reread it and thought that 
somehow I must be making a mistake in thinking that this amendment just 
didn't make it, but in any event, the Senate is going to make that 
judgment.
  I read the Kyl amendment and it reminded me of the great French 
philosopher who said that laws, in their sublime impartiality, treat 
the rich and the poor alike, from sleeping under the bridges and 
stealing bread. This is just exactly what the Kyl amendment does.
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield? That quote would be much better if 
it were read in French.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Petite a petite, l'oiseau fit son nid.
  To continue, this is what this amendment does. It says that any 
employer can go out and sell an insurance policy that is consistent 
with this bill. It doesn't indicate what contribution the employer has 
to make. It doesn't indicate that the employer has to make any 
contribution at all. All it says is he has to sell it.
  On the other hand, they can sell the other policy--that is cheap--
which the employer can help subsidize for that employee. And that 
basically undermines this whole bill and denies all of the workers all 
of the protections that we have talked about. That is a great choice. 
That is really a wonderful choice to have. And we all know what can 
happen. This basically undermines the whole concept of this 
legislation.
  There is no guarantee under the Senator's proposal that there is 
going to be a comparable and that the employer is going to do it. All 
they have to do is just sell the policy. So this is an extremely unfair 
and weighted alternative. Basically, it will provide a way, a vehicle 
for millions and millions and millions of hard-working American 
families to lose the benefits of this legislation, and it just doesn't 
make sense.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. LOTT. I believe that perhaps if Senator Kyl or others can yield 
back their time, we are ready to go to the Frist-Breaux substitute. 
Senator Frist is here ready to proceed. Is that acceptable on all 
sides?
  Mr. REID. We would vote on the Kyl amendment subsequent to the Frist-
Breaux amendment being offered.
  Mr. LOTT. That is correct. We would vote in stacked series, Kyl, 
Breaux-Frist, and then I presume we would be ready for final passage.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if I could just conclude my remarks in 
support of my amendment and in response to Senator Kennedy, how much 
time remains under my time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 12 minutes.
  Mr. KYL. I understand that Senator Frist would like to quickly 
proceed. There are several people who would like to speak in support of 
my amendment. Therefore, what I would like to propose is that we lay my 
amendment aside, go to Senator Frist, and I take up the remainder of my 
time prior to the vote.
  Mr. REID. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered. The amendment is laid aside.


                           Amendment No. 856

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 856 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. FRIST], for himself and Mr. 
     Breaux, proposes an amendment numbered 856.

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I will be brief, given the late hour.
  At this juncture, I have introduced an amendment which is a 
comprehensive approach to the Patients' Bill of Rights. Essentially 
this bill is the Frist-Breaux-Jeffords bill which was introduced on May 
15 of this year, modified with several of the amendments, which we will 
speak to shortly in the introduction either now or, if we have an 
interruption, we will speak to them in the 15 minutes on this side.
  What I wish to stress is that this amendment is a comprehensive 
replacement amendment for the bill. It involves strong patient 
protections, access to specialists, access to specialty care, access to 
emergency rooms, elimination of gag clauses, continuity of care.
  It has a strong appeals process, internal and external appeals. It 
requires full exhaustion of the internal and external appeals process. 
If the external decision--again, that is an independent physician, 
unbiased, independent of the plan--overrides the plan, then and only 
then does one go to court for the extraordinary damages. At any time 
during the appeals process you can go for what is called injunctive 
relief. Once you go for these damages, what are they? Economic damages 
are unlimited; noneconomic damages are $750,000 or three times economic 
damages. And that is a change from the underlying Frist-Breaux-Jeffords 
bill.
  There are no punitive damages. In our bill, as I mentioned, we 
require full exhaustion of the internal and external appeals process. 
We go to Federal court. We have not had very much debate over the last 
week on the Federal

[[Page 12466]]

versus State court. Senator Breaux will be speaking more directly to 
that. It is critical, we believe, that we take this new Federal cause 
of action to the Federal courts. There are strong timelines.
  The purpose of this amendment is to make sure people get the care 
they need when they need it--not a year later or 2 years later or 5 
years later. It is a balanced approach. The amendment itself is the 
Frist-Breaux-Jeffords of May 15. We have included the amendments put 
forth by Senator Thompson and modified by Senator McCain on the 
exhaustion of internal/external appeals. We have also included the 
Snowe-DeWine language. That is the direct decisionmaker language that 
they drew upon from our bill, the Frist-Breaux-Jeffords bill. But we 
took the specific Snowe-DeWine amendment and placed it in our bill; in 
addition, the amendment of Senator Bond, with the 1 million uninsured, 
then the liability would be repealed, which passed on the floor, is 
also a part of our bill.
  Secondly, we did raise the noneconomic caps from $500,000 to $750,000 
or three times economic damages.
  As a physician, as someone who has taken care of patients, as someone 
who recognizes that the purpose of a Patients' Bill of Rights is for 
patients to get the care when they need it, not extraordinary lawsuits, 
not frivolous lawsuits and skyrocketing costs, all of which will be 
absorbed by the 170 million people, we believe this bill is the 
balanced, responsible way of delivering a strong enforceable Patients' 
Bill of Rights.
  I yield, if I might, to the cosponsor, coauthor of the bill, Senator 
Breaux. Senator Jeffords will be speaking a little bit later. The three 
of us, as part of the Frist-Breaux-Jeffords amendment, have worked very 
hard over the last 2 years to put together this balanced bill, the only 
tripartisan bill in the Senate which comprehensively addresses the 
Patients' Bill of Rights.
  I yield to Senator Breaux.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, do we have a time agreement on this 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time established on this 
amendment.
  Mr. BREAUX. Let's try it without an agreement. We will see how it 
goes without any kind of agreement.
  Mr. President, I rise to comment on the bill that is now before the 
Senate. It is the Frist-Breaux-Jeffords substitute bill.
  Before doing so, while the Senator from Tennessee is still on the 
floor, I want to say something about how enjoyable it has been to work 
with him. While most of us are going to be leaving this Chamber tonight 
or tomorrow sometime to spend time with our family on vacation or have 
an enjoyable period of time that we can rest and relax, the Senator 
from Tennessee, because of what he does professionally and what he 
believes in, is going to be leaving on a flight tonight to go to 
Africa. He is going to Africa to do surgery on women and children and 
families who cannot afford health care on the continent of Africa.
  I want to say how proud all of us can be of one of our colleagues who 
has that type of attitude. He not only serves his constituents in 
Tennessee in this body but also serves so much of humanity in various 
places in the world by volunteering at his own cost, on his time, with 
his medical expertise, serving people who have no health care. We are 
talking about a Patients' Bill of Rights on the floor of the Senate. He 
really, truly is practicing that by providing medical services to 
people who can't afford it in various parts of the world.
  For those who are interested in getting a Patients' Bill of Rights 
enacted into law, let me say that, without the amendment that we have 
offered, the bill will not become law because the President has clearly 
indicated he will veto a bill that does not contain some of the main 
principles that you can find in the Frist-Breaux-Jeffords substitute.
  What I am talking about is not that complicated. The White House has 
said we are creating new Federal rights, Federal remedies, and we are 
amending a Federal statute--the ERISA laws of the United States. If 
there is going to be any litigation dealing with these new Federal 
rights, they ought to be handled in the Federal courts. Why do we 
recommend that? Why does the President say that is important? So we can 
have one consistent way of handling all of these potential suits that 
will be filed. Instead of having 50 different courts, with 50 different 
jurisdictions, with 50 different rules of evidence and 50 different 
procedures on how to handle litigation, you would have any disputes 
dealing with these Federal rights handled in the Federal court systems 
of the United States.
  Our opponents argue that the Federal courts don't want any more suits 
to be filed. Neither do the State courts. There is not a State court or 
district court anywhere in the United States that is going to say we 
need more litigation, come sue on a State level. Neither the Federal 
nor State courts want any additional litigation because they are as 
full as they possibly can be. So the argument that the Federal courts 
don't want them--well, neither do the States. I think from a matter of 
trying to make sure we have a system that works, that is, a national 
system that protects Federal rights, it should be in Federal court.
  If this is not part of the final package, the final package, indeed, 
will not become law, and that would be a very serious mistake for the 
people in this country.
  Second, we have recommended some type of caps--a reasonable amount of 
caps on noneconomic damages. We have no caps on economic damages, of 
course, but we suggested a cap of $750,000 for pain and suffering, for 
noneconomic damages, or three times the amount of economic damages, 
whichever is greater. We tie it to inflation. I think that is 
reasonable.
  We had also suggested something I think would be very important for 
the patients and, indeed, the lawyers who are concerned about 
litigating cases. There are no caps on our bill for gross negligence. 
At an earlier time we had offered that there would be no caps for 
wrongful death if a person was killed as a result of some decision made 
dealing with medical necessity. Then there would be no caps whatsoever 
either for gross negligence or wrongful death.
  Those two ingredients are very important. What happens when this bill 
leaves this body, if we are truly interested in getting an agreement, 
is that somehow between now and the time this bill gets down to the 
White House, these concerns are going to have to be addressed in a 
fashion that I think means they are going to have to be adopted. It 
does us no good to have a bill that is going to be vetoed. We will help 
no patients. They get a good political issue, but they don't get any 
help, any guarantees. We will have spent all of this time arguing about 
things that cannot become law. So I think the clear thing that our bill 
provides, which I think is absolutely essential either now or at some 
time, is that we have a degree of Federal jurisdiction that enforces 
the Federal rights that we are creating in this legislation, and that 
we address the question of unlimited damages in a way that allows the 
White House to be able to sign this bill.
  I will tell you that in reading what we have done with all of the 
amendments--the Snowe, Thompson, and DeWine amendments --where we have 
split jurisdiction, and the Kennedy-McCain bill which says some of the 
suits will be in State court and some in Federal court, our suggestion 
is just the opposite. The new rights will be in Federal court, and all 
the previous ones in the State courts will remain.
  We need to do some work on this. We have created something that is as 
complicated as the Egyptian hieroglyphics. If you had a flowchart on 
what we are suggesting in the bill now before the Senate, we could not 
figure out where you go and when you go to the different courts and for 
what rights. That is unacceptable. This thing needs a lot of work 
before it can become law because I am afraid that what we have created 
tonight in this bill is unmanageable and unworkable. Our suggestion 
makes it a great deal better.
  I am under no illusions about what is going to happen, but I know I 
am also not under any illusions about what can

[[Page 12467]]

be signed into law and what cannot. I fear that what we have tonight 
cannot be signed into law without the recommendations we have made.
  I yield the floor. I see my colleague from Vermont is also with us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, for nearly 5 years, Congress has debated 
how best to enhance protections for patients enrolled in managed care 
plans without unduly increasing health care costs, imposing significant 
burdens on America's employers, and adding to the ranks of the 
uninsured. Our debate over the last two weeks has given us ample 
opportunity to thoroughly discuss these critical issues.
  Through the amendment process the McCain-Edwards-Kennedy bill has 
been significantly improved. I particularly commend Senator Snowe for 
her amendment on employer liability and Senator Thompson for his 
amendment on exhausting the appeals process.
  However, I believe the McCain-Edwards-Kennedy bill is still 
fundamentally flawed in two critical areas. First, the bill would 
subject plans to excessive damages in the new federal cause of action. 
And second, by subjecting plans and employers to a new State cause of 
action, the bill destroys the current national uniformity for 
employers. The bill would subject employers or their designated agents 
to lawsuits in 50 different States.
  The better alternative to the McCain-Edwards-Kennedy bill is our 
amendment. It is based on the legislation that I introduced with 
Senator Frist and Senator Breaux. It has much in common with the 
McCain-Edwards-Kennedy bill. They share 11 provisions that provide new 
patient protections. Each provides for information to assist consumers 
in navigating the health care system. Most importantly, the bills 
provide for an internal and external independent review process with 
strong new remedies when the external view process fails. Our primary 
area of disagreement lies in the degree that employers are protected 
from multiple causes of action in multiple venues and the provision of 
a reasonable cap on damages.
  President Bush has made clear that our amendment meets the principles 
he has outlined for patient protection legislation that he would sign 
into law. This balanced legislation also is supported by a wide range 
of groups representing nearly 400,000 of America's physicians and 
health professionals.
  Our amendment protects all Americans in private health plans and at 
the same time, it gives deference to the states to allow them to 
continue enforcing managed care laws consistent with the new federal 
rules.
  Under our amendment health plans that fail to comply with independent 
review decisions or that harm patients by delaying coverage will be 
held accountable through expanded federal court remedies, including 
unlimited economic damages. In addition, patients can go to court at 
any time to get the health benefits they need through injunctive relief 
if going through the internal or external review process would cause 
them irreparable harm.
  We hope that everyone who is committed to passing legislation that 
can become law this year will join us in supporting this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, over the course of the last 2 weeks, 
during the course of this debate, we have made great progress and 
consensus has been reached on many issues, beginning with the issue of 
scope, how many Americans would be covered by this patient protection 
legislation.
  We have worked with Senators across the aisle and have been able to 
resolve that issue and resolve it in a way that all Americans are 
covered and there is a floor of protection for all Americans.
  Second, we were able to resolve the issue of access to clinical 
trials, an issue on which there has been some disagreement in this 
body.
  Third, we have been able to resolve the issue of employer liability 
in a way that protects employers from liability without completely 
eliminating the rights of patients. We have done it in a balanced way 
so that 94 percent--every small employer in America--are 100-percent 
protected.
  We have also resolved the issue of exhaustive appeals so patients 
will go through the appeals process to get the care they need before 
they go to court.
  Medical necessity is another issue resolved during the course of this 
debate.
  All of these issues are the issues of great work many days, many 
hours of compromise, negotiation, and consensus reached in the Chamber 
of the Senate. This substitute abandons a number of those consensus 
agreements, starting with the issue of scope.
  On the issue of scope, the Senator from Louisiana and I were able to 
fashion a provision that provides a floor and protects all Americans. 
That provision was voted on and consensus was reached. That consensus 
provision is not in this substitute.
  Second, on the issue of exhaustion, the Senator from Tennessee and I 
worked to fashion a provision that provides that all patients exhaust 
the appeals before they go to court in a way that does not prevent 
patients who have an extended appeal from being harmed by that extended 
appeal. In other words, if it goes on 31 days or more, they can go to 
court simultaneous with the appeal. That exhaustion provision on which 
there was a huge vote in favor of it in the Senate is not in this 
substitute.
  Third, the independence of the review panels: I concede I have not 
seen the language, but assuming it is the same language that was 
originally in the Frist-Breaux bill, it has no provision specifically 
requiring the so-called independent review panel be, in fact, 
independent; nothing requiring that the HMO not be able to control or 
dictate who, in fact, is on the appeals panel. It is like the HMO being 
able to pick the judge and the jury. So there is not established to 
anyone's satisfaction that, in fact, that appeals panel will be 
independent.
  Finally, on the issue of going to Federal court versus State court, 
the American Bar Association, the Federal judiciary, the U.S. Supreme 
Court, the State attorneys general, all the objective, large legal 
bodies in this country have said that these cases should go to State 
court.
  That is what our legislation provides. Unfortunately, under this 
substitute, the vast majority of cases would, indeed, go to Federal 
court.
  Many Americans live hundreds of miles from the closest Federal 
courthouse. It would be much more difficult for these injured patients 
to get a lawyer to represent them in a Federal action, particularly one 
that might take place hundreds of miles away, and most important, and 
the reason so many of these objective bodies said these cases belong in 
State court, is that it will take so long to get the case heard. There 
is such a backlog already, it makes no sense to send these cases to 
Federal court.
  What we have done instead is say: You, HMO, if you are going to 
overrule doctors, if you are going to make health care decisions, we 
are going to treat you exactly as we treat the other health care 
providers. We treat them exactly the same. It is the reason this is 
such a critical provision to the American Medical Association, to all 
the doctors groups across this country and to the consumer groups 
across America.
  There are fundamental differences in our underlying legislation, as 
amended, and in the substitute, starting with the issue of scope, about 
which we have reached consensus, going to the issue of exhaustion of 
administrative remedies, which is not in this substitute; the required 
independence of the review panel is not in the substitute; the 
requirement that the cases that every objective body says should go to 
State court, including the U.S. Supreme Court, those cases go to 
Federal court instead under this provision.
  We have made tremendous progress. I am very pleased with the work of 
all of our colleagues--Republicans, Democrats, and Independent--in this 
process. The work has been productive. We have done important work in 
the Senate, but it is not important to us. It is important for the 
people of this country, the families of this country who

[[Page 12468]]

deserve more control over their health care decisions, who deserve real 
rights, enforceable rights.
  That is what we have been able to accomplish over the last 2 weeks. 
Unfortunately, in every respect in which this substitute is different 
from the underlying legislation, as amended, it favors the HMO versus 
the patient. In every respect, we favor the patient; they favor the 
HMO.
  I say to my colleagues who sponsored this amendment, I know they are 
well-intentioned. I know they worked very hard on it. I respect every 
one of them, and I respect the work they have done, but I believe the 
work we have, in fact, done in this Chamber over the last 2 weeks is a 
much better product and, most importantly, will provide meaningful 
protections for the patients and families of this country who deserve 
finally to have the law on their side instead of having the law on the 
side of the big HMOs.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time limit.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank my good friend, Dr. Frist. 
Senator Frist has been the chairman of our Public Health Subcommittee 
and he and I have worked on a lot of different health care issues 
together.
  I thank Senator Jeffords who has been a strong ally on many health 
care issues over a long period of time.
  I have also worked extensively with the Senator from Louisiana, Mr. 
Breaux, on many health care issues.
  The fact is, when you have this combination of people making a strong 
recommendation, it is worthy for the Senate to give a true examination 
of their product and their recommendation this evening.
  Having said all of that, it is worthwhile in the final minutes of 
this debate and before action that we give special consideration to the 
viewpoints of the doctors, the nurses, and the patients who have 
followed this issue and have really breathed life into this issue over 
a long time.
  Tonight, at this time, there is only one matter that is before us 
that has the complete support of the medical profession, the nurses, 
the doctors, all of the groups that represent the children in this 
country, all the groups that represent the disability community, all of 
the groups that represent the Cancer Society, all the groups that 
represent the aged, all the groups that represent the special needs of 
people who have special medical challenges. They have had a chance to 
review each and every provision. They know every aspect of every page 
of all the legislation and the amendments, and they come down virtually 
unanimously in support of the McCain-Edwards legislation.
  Senator Edwards has already outlined and Senator McCain will further 
outline the various concerns.
  Let me mention matters we have focused on during this debate.
  The clinical trials: We are in the century of life sciences, and we 
are putting resources into and investing in the NIH. We are never going 
to get the benefits of the research in the laboratory to the bedside 
unless we have effective clinical trials.
  We have strong commitments on clinical trials; Breaux-Frist is short 
on that, and it will take up to 5 years to begin the clinical trials.
  Specialty care: We guarantee specialty care. Any mother who brings in 
a child who has cancer will be able to get the specialty care. Breaux-
Frist does not provide it. If it is not within that particular HMO, 
then it is not a medically reviewable decision. There are restrictions 
in the bill.
  We have debated the issues of the appeals. Breaux-Frist still has 
provisions where the HMO will be selecting the appeal organization, 
which is effectively selecting the judge and jury in these appeals.
  Liability: As has been pointed out, Breaux-Frist brings all the 
liability into the Federal system. Every patients group and every group 
that concerned itself about getting true accountability for patients 
understands the importance of keeping liability in the State court.
  Even though the words are similar, although we have the issues of 
medical necessity, although we use the words of specialization, 
although the words of appeals are used in both bills, there is a 
dramatic and significant difference. Those are the two choices before 
the Senate.
  I thank our colleagues and friends on the other side. There really is 
only one true Patients' Bill of Rights that is going to protect the 
patients in this country, the families, the children, the women, the 
workers in this Nation, and that is the McCain-Edwards bill. I hope we 
support that shortly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. I ask unanimous consent action with respect to Ensign 
amendment No. 849 be vitiated and the Senate vote in relation to the 
amendment following the disposition of the Kyl amendment, with up to 10 
minutes equally divided for debate prior to that vote.
  Mr. LOTT. Reserving the right to object, I hope the Senator will 
withhold. I think a continued effort is underway, and if he will 
withhold at this point--I prefer not to object--let's see if we can't 
work it out.
  Mr. ENSIGN. I withdraw my unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Senators Breaux and Frist for 
their efforts. I believe they have a goodwill attitude toward this 
issue. I especially thank Dr. Frist for his leadership not only on this 
issue but on so many other health care issues that come before the 
Senate. I respect their commitment in protecting patients and holding 
health plans accountable. I do not believe the substitute has a 
mutually shared goal.
  Both my colleagues, Senators Edwards and Kennedy, point out some of 
the differences between our two bills. I remind Members that the 
amendment does provide very limited relief in Federal court and would 
only allow a handful of cases to be addressed: Only those patients who 
receive approval from the external medical review can go to court.
  Numerous States, including my home State of Arizona, have enacted 
laws that permit injured patients to hold plans legally responsible for 
their negligent medical decisions. I believe this substitute nullifies 
these laws. My colleagues may assert they do not preempt State law, but 
I respectfully disagree. Delaying and denying care by an HMO is not a 
contract issue for Federal court. Delaying and denying of care is a 
medical malpractice and should be determined in State court.
  As we know, this is a substitute. Over the last 2 weeks we have made 
some very important changes to this legislation, which is the 
appropriate way to legislate. We have made important changes on 
employer liability thanks to Senator Snowe and Senator DeWine and 
others; exhausting administrative procedure, thanks to Senator Thompson 
and Senator Edwards; limits on legal fees, an effort undertaken by 
Senator Warner; reasonable scope, protecting all Americans, limitations 
on class action suits, and venue to prevent forum shopping, in which 
Senator Thompson and others were involved.
  Some of these have been included in the substitute, and some have 
not. I believe all of these changes that have been made through open 
and honest debate on this legislation should be included.
  Again, we still have avoided the fundamental issue of State and 
Federal court. I believe that issue is not resolved to the satisfaction 
of the patient as opposed to the HMO.
  I take an additional minute to thank a number of people including the 
White House staff, Josh Bolton and Anne Phelps; Senator Gregg's 
stewardship on this side has been exemplary; Senators Frist and Breaux 
have obviously been very helpful; Senators Snowe, Lincoln, DeWine, 
Nelson, and Thompson. I thank both leaders, Senator Daschle and Senator 
Lott, as well as Senator Reid and Senator Nickles, who have been 
involved in this issue for a long time, as well as Senator Edwards and 
Senator Kennedy.

[[Page 12469]]

  Soon we will vote on this legislation. I believe we will prevail. I 
think this, like the campaign finance reform bill, has been open, 
honest, fair debate on which all sides have been heard, and I think, 
again, the Senate can be proud, no matter what the outcome, of the way 
we proceeded to address this issue which is important to so many 
millions of Americans.
  This is an important issue to American citizens. This is an important 
issue to the person who cannot contribute a lot of money to American 
political campaigns. This is an important issue to average citizens 
whose voices are oftentimes drowned out in Washington, in my view, by 
the voices of the special interests, whether they be trial lawyers, 
insurance companies, HMOs, or others.
  I think putting patients first and the HMOs second, as we crafted 
this legislation, is an important outcome and why I have to oppose the 
substitute and urge my colleagues to vote favorably when we reach final 
passage.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. I will make two or three comments. First, I compliment 
and congratulate Senator Kennedy and Senator Gregg for their patience 
and leadership in managing this bill and also managing the education 
bill. Also, I congratulate Senator McCain and Senator Edwards for their 
contribution because they are going to pass a bill, and Senator 
Daschle, as well.
  This has been a battle that some have been wrestling with for a long 
time. As a matter of fact, a year ago we passed legislation that was 
called Patients' Bill of Rights Plus. In my opinion, it is far superior 
to the legislation we are getting ready to pass tonight. It was 
legislation that allowed every plan to have an appeal, internal and 
external, and it was binding --not binding by lawsuits, but if you did 
not comply with external appeal, you could be fined $10,000 a day--a 
different approach. I think it is far superior.
  In looking at the language we have today and in the underlying bill, 
the so-called McCain-Edwards-Kennedy bill, maybe some modest 
improvements have been made. It is the bill that will finally pass, but 
it is a bill that the President will not sign and the President 
shouldn't sign.
  I hope we will pass good legislation but not pass legislation that 
will dramatically increase health care costs, as I am afraid it will. 
There has to be some reason that employers that voluntarily supply 
health care, purchase health care for their employees, that employers 
of all sizes are almost unanimous in their opposition. They are not 
compelled to buy health care for employees, but they want to. Now we 
are getting ready to threaten them with unlimited liability. We keep 
hearing about suing the HMOs, but suing the HMOs and/or employers and 
threatening them with unlimited liability, economic damages, unlimited 
noneconomic damages, pain and suffering--there are costs included.
  Somebody said we solve that because we have a designated 
decisionmaker. If there is a designated decisionmaker, the net result 
is, well, if you are going to hand off your liability to me, what am I 
protecting? What am I insuring?
  With contracts that can be abrogated or breached, an independent 
reviewer can say, you have to cover other things, and you have a lot of 
liability if things do not work out. The net result will be the 
independent reviewer will say, defensive medicine, we will pay for 
anything because they don't want to be sued. They don't want to be 
liable. Then they increase premiums because whatever the liability is, 
they don't know how much it is or how expensive it is, and they will 
increase their rates. They don't plan on losing money and they don't 
want to go out of business, so there will be a lot of defensive 
medicine and they will charge extra premiums to the employer to make 
sure they don't go out of business.
  So the cost estimates, some people have said, are 4- or 5-percent per 
year increases on top of the already 13- or 20-percent increases built 
in, in increased costs for health care. They are probably much more. 
The costs of the bill could increase the cost of health care by 8 to 10 
percent. We should know that.
  Again, we should do no harm. We should not pass legislation that will 
not work, that will do harm. It will do harm if you increase the number 
of uninsured. It will do harm if you price insurance out of the realm 
of affordability for millions of Americans. I am afraid that is what we 
are doing.
  There is one other issue that has not received maybe enough 
attention. Senator Collins and Senator Nelson raised that. That is the 
issue of scope: Should the Federal Government be taking over regulating 
that the States do? I am concerned about the language. It was modified 
modestly. It said the States have to be substantially compliant with 
these new Federal regulations. That language goes so far that really 
the States are going to have to adopt almost identical language to what 
we have put in this bill. The net result? If they don't, HCFA takes 
over--the Health Care Financing Administration.
  A couple of points: HCFA can't do it, HHS can't do it, the Department 
of Labor cannot do it. I want to make that point one final time.
  We are ready to pass this mandate and say to the States: If you don't 
do it, Federal Government, you do it. If the States don't, you do it.
  The Federal Government does not have the wherewithal to do it. Every 
State has hundreds of personnel involved in enforcing insurance 
regulation, and we are saying, you do it or we are going to take over. 
That is one of the largest unfunded mandates ever proposed by Congress.
  I am a little mad at myself for not being able to offer a point of 
order that this is an unfunded mandate. One of the reasons I cannot is 
that it was not reported out of committee.
  The unfunded mandates bill, the Congressional Accountability Act, 
says we have a report that comes out with the committee report and we 
can raise a point of order if you have an unfunded mandate on cities, 
counties, States, and the private sector. We cannot do that because we 
don't have a committee report because the bill was not reported out of 
committee. It was a year ago, but it is not now.
  My point is this is an enormous unfunded mandate on counties and 
cities and States. We are mandating this on all those employees, 
saying: We know best, the Federal Government knows best. States, we 
know you have an emergency room procedure, but we are going to dictate 
a more expensive one.
  I could go all the way down the list. My point is, even though we 
have done it, we cannot enforce it. You have non-enforceable 
provisions. There is no protection there. It may make us feel better, 
we may tell the American people we have provided the protections, but 
we cannot enforce it because the Federal Government cannot and should 
not take over State regulation of insurance. That is a mistake.
  I am afraid the combination of the two, the expanded liability--you 
can sue employers and the providers for unlimited damages in State and/
or Federal court for economic and noneconomic, unlimited in both cases. 
You can jury shop. You can find a place that would work. That is going 
to scare employers. Employers beware, the bill we are passing tonight 
makes you liable. You are going to have to pay a lot more in health 
care costs as a result of the bill we are passing tonight.
  Again, my compliments to the sponsors. They worked hard. The 
opponents worked hard. We will pass a bill tonight. But I hope it will 
be improved dramatically in conference so we will have a bill that is 
affordable, will not scare people away from insurance, will not 
increase the number of uninsured by millions. My prediction is this 
bill would increase the number of uninsured by millions and cost 
billions and billions of dollars. I hope that is not the case. I hope 
it is fixed and improved in conference and we will have a bill that 
President Bush can sign and become law and of which we will all be 
proud. Unfortunately, I think the underlying bill does not meet that 
test.
  With great reluctance I am going to be voting no on the underlying 
McCain-Kennedy-Edwards bill. I urge my colleagues to do likewise.

[[Page 12470]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I regret deeply I will not be able to 
vote for this bill. My State does not have a problem with the HMOs that 
other people have expressed. Our State would be mandated by this bill 
to change its laws. The sensible amendment offered by Senator Collins 
was defeated. The Allard amendments that dealt with small business were 
defeated. The mandates in this bill will hamper our development of a 
sound health care delivery system for Alaska.
  It is a vast area with a few people. We do not need the interference 
of the Federal Government. We need help. I think this bill will 
interfere with what we are doing. I hope by the time it comes out of 
conference I will be able to support it. I commend everyone who has 
tried, but this, the underlying bill, will not help our people; it will 
hurt them; and I cannot support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I think this bill is a lot better than 
when we started. There remains one area, of course, where we have 
substantial disagreement, and that has to do with where the lawsuits 
are going to be brought. The underlying bill still has a bifurcated 
system where some suits can be brought to State court and some in 
Federal court. I think that is the main thing the Frist-Breaux-Jeffords 
amendment tries to address.
  We all can read the handwriting on the wall. I think we know how this 
is going to go. But it is very important our colleagues understand what 
we are doing. With regard to the underlying bill, there is a 
presupposition, apparently, that a client will walk into a lawyer's 
office with a tag around his neck saying, I'm a State suit, or, I'm a 
Federal suit. That will not be the case. There will be many cases that 
are mixed. Some will have to do with coverage denial, some will have to 
do with medically reviewable claims, some will be more of a contract 
case, some will be more of a tort case. Arguably, it could go in either 
court. Some will go to Federal court and the defendant will object and 
say, no, you belong in State court, and the judge will rule. Then there 
will be an appeal in that venue. Then that will be determined, and then 
it will go possibly to the opposite court. In other words, there will 
be litigation at one or more levels in order to determine where you are 
going to litigate.
  Some, on the other hand, will go to State court, and there will be a 
fight there as to whether or not that belongs in State court. It may be 
remanded over to Federal court.
  Some will come in with cases, parts of which will arguably be in 
Federal court and parts of the same case could arguably be in State 
court.
  All I am suggesting is there is no easy solution to this. It has been 
pointed out that there are some down sides to bringing them in Federal 
court, too. They are overcrowded. We have heard examples of federally 
related lawyers and judges saying it ought to be in State court. If you 
took a poll among the State-related lawyers and judges, they would say 
just the opposite. But at least you avoid the problems I am talking 
about.
  We are going into a system now where we are creating new law; we are 
creating new defendants. But wait, it is not just HMOs and employers. 
The independent decisionmakers are subject to liability, too. The 
independent medical reviewer is subject to liability, too. They have a 
higher standard. I believe it is a ``gross or willful misconduct'' 
standard. It is a higher standard, but they can be sued for settlement 
value or whatever.
  We have a complicated liability framework, so you have different 
people, different standards, new lawsuits. It is going to be extremely 
confusing for a long time, and it is going to result in much higher 
costs.
  The tradeoffs may be there. The decisions were made that we adopted 
this in view of all that. But I think it is very important that at a 
time when health care costs are already going up in double digits, we 
are doing something that quite clearly is going to result in much more 
litigation, much more confusion about that litigation. Somebody 
ultimately has to pay for all that. It is going to ultimately result in 
higher costs to our citizens. I think it is important we understand 
that before we cast these votes.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. We are just about at the point now where I think we can 
begin voting on amendments. I ask unanimous consent that following the 
first amendment, all other votes be limited to 10 minutes. I ask 
further that the two managers be permitted to offer a joint managers' 
amendment following the passage, prior to the close of business today.
  Mr. LOTT. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I will not 
object, I just want to clarify where we are. I believe we are ready to 
recognize Senator Kyl--he had a little time left on his amendment--and 
then I believe we will be ready to have the three votes: Kyl amendment, 
Breaux-Frist, and final passage.
  Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object, on the managers' package we 
are working to try to reach an agreement. Hopefully, we will reach an 
agreement. If we do not reach agreement--is my understanding correct 
that we have to reach agreement by the end of today? What is the 
parliamentary situation if we do not reach an agreement by the end of 
today?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, there would not be a managers' amendment 
if we couldn't find mutual agreement on the amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the majority leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.


                           Amendment No. 854

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Senator Nickles be 
shown as a cosponsor of amendment No. 854.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL. There are two people I know of who would like to speak 
briefly on my amendment. I would like to respond briefly to what 
Senator Kennedy said and then summarize.
  May I begin by congratulating the authors of the underlying 
legislation and expressing appreciation for all those who have worked 
with me. Especially I want to thank my colleague, John McCain, and 
congratulate him for his successful efforts in moving this legislation 
forward. It is not always easy when colleagues from the same State are 
not in total agreement on everything, but he let me know early on when 
I first came to the Senate he didn't expect to agree with me on every 
issue. He said he might even be in disagreement on some matters with me 
from time to time.
  I appreciate his efforts and the efforts of all of those who have 
worked with me.
  Just to summarize for those who were not here earlier, my amendment 
is very simple. It merely provides an option for employers that offer 
plans that are covered by this bill to also provide an alternative for 
their employees. That would permit the employees to have as their 
remedy the receipt of the health care or for the cost of that health 
care rather than going to court and getting damages as they are 
permitted to do under the bill. This should provide a lower cost 
alternative that could be made available to them. That, in turn, should 
provide a way for employers that might otherwise have to reduce the 
number of employees covered, or not have insurance for their employees 
at all, to continue to provide that coverage.
  As I pointed out before, according to the Congressional Budget Office 
information, and the Lewin Group, probably over a million American 
citizens will lose their health care as a result of the increased 
expenses that could result from this legislation.
  The effort that we have all tried to engage is to find ways to reduce 
those costs so premiums won't go up as much and so employers can 
continue to provide the care. The best way to do that is to allow them 
to provide a purely voluntary option for their employees to accept, 
which would not have the same lawsuit damage option but would

[[Page 12471]]

provide them the health care for which they have contracted. It is 
about health benefits rather than lawsuits. We think this would provide 
the remedy for that.
  The only comment that Senator Kennedy made in opposition was that we 
are not regulating how the employer would have to contribute toward the 
insurance policies for their employees. That is very true. We are not 
doing that in the underlying bill. We are not doing it in the Breaux-
Frist amendment. We are not doing it in my amendment. I don't think 
anybody here has suggested we should be mandating from the Federal 
Government how much money the employers have to pay for their insurance 
option that they provide for their employees. I do not think that is a 
relevant point.
  I reserve the remainder of my time for those who wish to speak to it. 
Then I will be prepared to yield back.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will just take 1 minute.
  The Kyl amendment will permit a company to offer a sham policy and a 
real policy. To get the real policy, an employee will have to weigh all 
of his or her rights under the liability provisions of the McCain-
Edwards bill. Those are the alternatives. It basically undermines the 
whole concept of this legislation because it will permit employers and 
HMOs to escape any kind of accountability upon which this legislation 
is built. That creates a massive loophole which is undermining the 
whole purpose of this legislation.
  I hope the amendment will be defeated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the hour is late, but the Kyl amendment is 
important. There is no sham here at all. It is the marketplace at 
work--voluntarily to provide the employee with options. The employer 
must provide health care programs if they are going to provide health 
care programs that fit this bill, that fit the Patients' Bill of 
Rights, but in doing so they also can provide a voluntary option if the 
employee chooses to take it, which simply says you waive your rights to 
a lawsuit. And guess what. It might cost that employee less money. Yet 
he and she, and their families, might still be covered.
  Isn't that a reasonable option and a voluntary option to provide to 
the marketplace?
  How dare we say that every attorney ought to have a right here? Why 
not say every employee has a right to a marketplace of options that 
this voluntary approach that the Senator from Arizona provides gives to 
the health care system of our country?
  I support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, over the past 8 days we have had 
amendment after amendment that have created massive loopholes in the 
very basic and fundamental fabric of this legislation, which is to 
protect patients, protect families, protect doctors, and protect 
medical decisions against the bottom line of HMOs.
  This is another one of those in the parade, and it should be 
rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask for 1 minute.
  Mr. President, the option provided by Senator Kyl is not a loophole. 
It is an option. Under his plan, all policies that an employer would 
offer would provide the external and internal reviews that we have in 
all of the plans. The option to go to specialists, the gag rule 
protections that we have made a part of this bill--all of that would be 
in the plan.
  It would simply give the employee an option, if he thought it would 
save him money and he or she didn't intend to sue for benefits, to 
choose a policy that could be cheaper and simply not have certain 
lawsuit rights but, in fact, that operate for liability purposes under 
current law. It is no worse than current law. It is no better than 
current law. That is an option that could save a working family money 
that they need for their budget.
  For those who want all matters to be exactly the same, I don't see 
why they would resist such an option. I think it is good for the 
employees.
  I salute Senator Kyl. I also note that Senator Jeffords had a hearing 
recently on the uninsured in America. We know there are over 40 million 
uninsured and that every 1 percent increase in insurance costs causes 
300,000 people to drop off the insurance rolls.
  I think it is a good move. I support it.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, there is nothing mandatory in this 
legislation. It is all voluntary. It is a simple choice for the 
employees. I hope my colleagues will support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I yield all time on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Kyl 
amendment No. 854. The yeas and nays have been ordered and the clerk 
will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. 
Domenici), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski), the Senator from 
Colorado (Mr. Campbell), and the Senator from Texas (Mr. Gramm) are 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Akaka). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 42, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 218 Leg.]

                                YEAS--42

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Cochran
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--54

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Campbell
     Domenici
     Gramm
     Murkowski
  The amendment (No. 854) was rejected.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 856

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Frist-
Breaux substitute amendment No. 856.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. 
Campbell), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), the Senator from 
Texas (Mr. Gramm), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski), and the 
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Lott) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 36, nays 59, as follows:

[[Page 12472]]



                      [Rollcall Vote No. 219 Leg.]

                                YEAS--36

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Cochran
     Collins
     DeWine
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--59

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Campbell
     Domenici
     Gramm
     Lott
     Murkowski
  The amendment (No. 856) was rejected.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I wish to enter into a colloquy with the 
distinguished manager of the bill to clarify the intent of the 
sponsors.
  Section 202 of the bill amends the Public Health Service Act with a 
new section 2753 that applies all of the requirements of title I of the 
Patients Bill of Rights to each health insurance issuer in the 
individual market.
  Current law, at section 2763 provides that none of the preceding 
requirements of the ``individual market rules'' apply to health 
insurance coverage consisting of ``excepted benefits''.
  Similar provisions exist in current law at section 2721 of the Public 
Health Service Act for the group insurance market. A parallel provision 
exists in ERISA at section 732 for ``excepted benefits''.
  Is it the intent of the managers of the bill that current law section 
2763 and the parallel provisions for the group market in the Public 
Health Service Act and ERISA remain in full force notwithstanding the 
language of new section 2753?
  In other words the requirements of title I of the Patients Bill of 
Rights would apply to individual and group health insurance other than 
``expected benefits'' coverage.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct. It is the intent of the managers 
of the bill that the requirements of title I do not apply to insurance 
coverage consisting of ``excepted benefits''.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the 
bipartisan McCain-Edwards-Kennedy Bipartisan Patient Protection Act. 
Managed care reform, particularly the enactment of a comprehensive 
Patients' Bill of Rights, is one of the most important issues currently 
before either body of the U. S. Congress. After all the debate we have 
had on the floor in the last two weeks, I believe we are at the cusp of 
providing true, meaningful protections for every American in every 
health care plan.
  Unfortunately, while over 160 million Americans rely on managed care 
plans for their health insurance, HMOs can still restrict a doctor's 
best advice based purely on financial costs. The fact is, we know that 
the great promise of managed care--lower costs and increased quality--
has in all too many cases turned into an acute case of less freedom and 
greater bureaucracy.
  I want to tell my colleagues about the Malone family from Everett, 
Washington. Their son, Ian, was born with brain damage that makes it 
very difficult for him to swallow, to even cough and gag properly. He 
cannot eat or breathe without being carefully watched. He's fed through 
a tube in his stomach since he can't swallow.
  The doctors at Children's Hospital in Seattle--one of the best 
pediatric care institutions in the world--said that Ian could leave the 
Intensive Care Unit but would need 16 hours of home nursing care a day 
for Ian. And while initially the Malone's health insurance company paid 
for this care, it decided to cut it off. Ian's father says that ``The 
insurance company told us to give Ian up for adoption and let the 
taxpayers step in and pay for his care. They didn't care. It was all 
about saving money.''
  It seems that the week's rhetoric has centered on the idea of 
business and employers versus patients--as if these two interests are 
inherently antithetical, rather than complementary. But they are not. 
In fact, I believe the Bipartisan Patient Protection Act is a balanced 
approach to protecting patients and protecting the business of managed 
care.
  My home State of Washington has been a leader in providing health 
care to all of its citizens and has enacted strong patient protections 
at the state level. Under Washington State law, patients have the right 
to accurate and accessible information about their health insurance; 
the right to a second opinion; timely access to services by qualified 
medical personnel; the right to appeal decisions to an independent 
review board; and the ability to sue providers for damages if they are 
substantially harmed by a provider's decisions.
  I believe that States are the laboratories of democracy and I do not 
take lightly the possibility that any federal legislation would 
undermine or preempt state law. I spent six years on the Health Care 
Committee in the State House of Representatives and just this last year 
Washington passed a comprehensive Patient's Bill of Rights. In issues 
such as the one before us this week, it is paramount that federal 
legislation enhance state protections, not undermine them.
  And that is what this bill does. The McCain-Edwards-Kennedy 
compromise explicitly preserves strong state patient protection laws 
that substantially comply with the protections in the Federal bill. 
This is an extremely important point. The standards for certifying 
state laws that meet or exceed the Federal minimum standard ensure that 
only more protective State laws replace the Federal standards.
  But I find it ironic that opponents of a strong, enforceable, 
Patients' Bill of Rights have traditionally limited the scope of the 
patient protections in their managed care reform legislation to those 
individuals in self-insured plans, which are not regulated by the 
States, and assert that the States are responsible for the rest.
  This approach denies Federal protections to millions of Americans--
teachers, police officers, firefighters and nurses who work for State 
and local governments; most farmers and independent business owners who 
purchase their own coverage; most workers in small businesses who are 
covered by small group insurance policies, and millions more who are 
covered by a health maintenance organization. We need federal 
protections so that all Americans are guaranteed basic rights.
  In fact, no state has passed all the protections in the bipartisan 
McCain-Edwards-Kennedy Patients' Bill of Rights. To fail to enact this 
bill would mean that neighbors, and sometimes workers in the same 
company, will have different protections under the law. The scope of 
this legislation simply ensures that all Americans in all health plans 
have the same basic level of patient protections.
  Let me focus for a few minutes on what this bill does.
  This bill protects a patient's right to hear the full range of 
treatment options from their doctors, and it prohibits financial 
incentives to limiting medical care.
  This bill allows patients to go to the first available emergency room 
when they are facing an emergency--regardless of whether that 
particular E.R. is in their managed care network.
  This bill allows women to go directly to their obstetrician or 
gynecologist

[[Page 12473]]

without going through a ``gatekeeper,'' and it allows parents to bring 
their children directly to pediatricians instead of having to go 
through primary care physicians.
  This bill allows patients with life-threatening or serious illnesses, 
for whom standard treatments are ineffective, to participate in 
approved clinical trials.
  This bill has laid out stringent, tough, enforceable internal and 
external review standards, and we have ensured that a truly independent 
body has the capability and authority to resolve disputes for cases 
denying access to medical care.
  This bill promotes informed decision-making by patients, by requiring 
health plans and insurance companies to provide details about plan 
benefits, restrictions and exclusions, and other important information 
about coverage and rights under the legislation.
  Finally, the Bipartisan Patient Protection Act holds insurers and 
HMOs accountable for their acts.
  Twenty years ago, very few Americans were in managed care plans. 
Since the early 1990s, however, insured workers' enrollment in 
traditional fee-for-service plans has dropped from about 50 percent to 
under 25 percent. The broad shift to managed care has been driven, 
largely, by cost concerns. But in our need to control health care 
costs, it is imperative that we do not forget what we are supposed to 
be doing--providing health care.
  There will be few issues more important in the 107th Congress than 
the one we are voting on today. Health care affects people personally, 
every day of their lives, and we have a real responsibility to ensure 
that any changes we make put the patient's interests first. That is 
what this bill does, and I proudly rise in support of the Bipartisan 
Patient Protection Act.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I was prepared to offer an amendment to 
S. 1052 concerning mandatory arbitration to ensure that HMOs are held 
accountable for their actions, which after all is one of the primary 
purposes of this bill. I have been asked not to offer that amendment, 
so I wanted to discuss it with the lead sponsors of the bill and ask 
them to clarify their intent.
  Some managed care organizations currently require patients to sign 
mandatory binding arbitration contracts before any dispute arises. 
These provisions effectively deny injured patients the right to take 
their HMO to court. Instead they are forced to go into binding 
arbitration, which can be a stacked deck against patients. We have 
spent much of the past 10 days debating whether injured patients should 
be able to go to court to vindicate their rights. It is clear that a 
majority of the Senate supports such rights, otherwise we would not be 
about to pass this legislation. So I am asking my colleagues to clarify 
that it is the intent of the sponsors that injured patients are granted 
legal rights under this legislation that permit them to go to either 
state or federal court to pursue compensation and redress, 
notwithstanding a mandatory arbitration provision in an HMO contract. 
Can they further clarify that it is not the intent of the sponsors of 
this legislation that patients can lose the legal rights we are 
providing in this bill by being forced into mandatory binding 
arbitration? In these arbitrations, the HMO chooses the arbitrator, 
there are substantial up-front costs that the patient has to bear, 
there is limited discovery, no right to appeal, and no public record or 
precedential value of the decision.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend from Wisconsin for raising this very 
important issue about this legislation. We have come very far on this 
legislation. It is the intent of the bill's sponsors and of the 
majority about to pass this bill that patients will have the full legal 
rights provided under this historic legislation. It is not our intent 
to provide these important legal rights on the one hand and then allow 
them to be taken away by mandatory arbitration contracts entered into 
before a dispute arises. We have said that this bill gives patients the 
right to an external appeal process and to go to court, and we intend 
that cases arising under these rights should be heard by the external 
reviewer in court, and not by private arbitrators.
  Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator would yield, I agree that our bill would 
be severely undermined if health insurers could avoid the protections 
we have tried to guarantee in this bill by inserting a clause in the 
fine print of the contract to require binding arbitration of disputes 
that might later arise.
  Mr. EDWARDS. I agree with my distinguished colleagues that HMOs 
should not be permitted to revoke the protections we have worked so 
hard to provide in this bill through the use of mandatory binding 
arbitration provisions in their contracts. Patients have no ability to 
bargain over the fine print of the health insurance contracts. That is 
why we have had to provide federal standards in this bill, and it would 
be wholly contrary to the approach of this bill to allow a backdoor 
route for these standards and protections to be avoided.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank my colleagues, the prime sponsors of this 
legislation for these clarifications. Based on these assurances, I will 
not offer my amendment. I yield the floor.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, during the past five years, we have 
debated the merits and faults of assorted patients' rights legislation. 
We have offered statistics, we have shared stories, and we have reduced 
strong legislation--legislation that held the real possibility of 
protecting all Americans--to weaker law that protects a minority of the 
population. Our work at times spoke of this issue in the abstract, yet 
there is nothing abstract about it. The 180 million Americans enrolled 
in health care plans have always understood exactly what it means to 
have insufficient coverage. However, they are not sitting on the edges 
of their seats, watching our heated arguments and waiting breathlessly 
for an outcome. Instead, they are engaged in the battles they have 
fought for far too long, and their disputes have far higher stakes. 
They are, quite literally, fighting with managed care organizations for 
their lives. The American people are tired, Mr. President, and deserve 
relief from these battles. They deserve good health and the peace of 
mind that comes with quality care. It is time we cast aside our 
partisan bickering and give the American people the right to health 
care, as well as the right to seek redress if denied quality health 
care. It is time to pass the Patients' Bill of Rights.
  Recognizing that 43 million Americans go without health insurance 
each day, and millions more carry partial to inadequate health 
coverage, I have worked with my colleagues both in committee and on the 
floor to deliver quality care that truly benefits patients. I am 
convinced that such health care coverage must include liability when 
needed care is denied, resulting in injury or death. Quality care must 
also include patients' access to medical specialists, and an appeals 
and review process when such access is denied. The McCain-Edwards-
Kennedy bill includes these stipulations and goes one step further. It 
ensures that, for the first time, all Americans enrolled in health 
plans will be given access to the care they need.
  With this in mind, I would like to enthusiastically endorse the 
McCain-Edwards-Kennedy Patients' Bill of Rights. A bipartisan effort in 
all regards, the legislation before us will ensure access to the 
quality of care that all Americans need--access which they deserve. 
First and foremost, it grants every individual with health coverage the 
same quality care. Under this McCain-Edwards-Kennedy legislation, for 
example, women, children, and the critically ill--often, the groups 
that are denied the care they need--will be given access to doctors who 
will determine their best medical interests.
  If denied such care, patients will also be given the opportunity to 
immediately appeal decisions. By employing independent review boards, 
victims will be able to seek second opinions prior to the denial of 
care. The McCain-Edwards-Kennedy bill ensures access to medical 
treatments, before it is too late. To date, thousands of patients have 
died as a result of decisions made by non-medical HMO personnel who

[[Page 12474]]

merely sought to reduce cost and increase profits. With this 
legislation, that need not happen ever again.
  We have now come to agreements so that the pending legislation will 
allow employees to seek punitive damages only if their employers 
willfully and negligently deny medical care that results in injury or 
death. Though some might argue that this will increase the cost of 
health care and, by extension, increase the number of uninsured in 
America, studies in states that have implemented similar protections 
have shown that this just is not the case. This right serves as a check 
against irresponsible decision-making and is critical to the 
legislation before us.
  Finally, the McCain-Edwards-Kennedy Patients' Bill of Rights provides 
hope for those suffering from chronic illness by encouraging the use of 
clinical trials if no other treatment exists. Alzheimer's, AIDS, and 
cancer patients, for example, have real hope that alternative therapies 
may improve their suffering and offer a long-term cure. This element of 
the legislation is long overdue. I fought along with other members of 
this body for this right as part of the Medicare program--yet the same 
opportunity does not exist for those with private coverage. It is a 
right--and it is time to help the seriously ill so that they can fight 
their illness, not their insurance company.
  We have been debating this issue for five years, in spite of the fact 
that we all agree patients deserve quality health care. Here on the 
floor, we concur on many of the issues that held this legislation up in 
conference last year. I was a member of that conference committee, and 
can safely say the negotiating we have done here has greatly improved 
the bipartisan support for the Patients' Bill of Rights, previously 
lacked in conference. We have negotiated and agree upon scope between 
state and federal law, and on the definition of ``medical necessity,'' 
as well as employer liability. We all agree that women should have 
access to OBGYN care, children should have access to pediatric care, 
and all patients should have access to emergency room care. I ask, 
then, what is holding us back? Indisputably, Americans have suffered 
too long and have endured too much. They deserve quality care--they 
deserve the Patients' Bill of Rights, and we must give it to them. I 
urge my colleagues to vote for the McCain-Edwards-Kennedy Patients' 
Bill of Rights.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 1052, the 
Bipartisan Patients Protection Act. After nearly 5 years of debate and 
partisan fighting, I am pleased that the Senate has finally passed a 
real, meaningful bipartisan Patients Bill of Rights. It is a step that 
is long overdue.
  For many years, the growth of managed care arrangements helped to 
rein in the rapidly growing costs of health care. That benefits all 
patients across the Nation and helps to keep health care costs in check 
for everyone.
  However, there is a real difference between making quality health 
care affordable and cutting corners on patient care. In Wisconsin, we 
are lucky that most health plans do a good job in keeping costs low and 
providing quality care. But too often across this nation, HMOs put too 
many obstacles between doctors and patients. In the name of saving a 
few bucks, too many patients must hurdle bureaucratic obstacles to get 
basic care. Even worse, too many patients are being denied essential 
treatment based on the bottom line rather than on what is best for 
them.
  The Patients Bill of Rights will ensure that patients come first--not 
HMO profits or health plan bureaucrats. It makes sure that doctors, in 
consultation with patients, can decide what treatments are medically 
necessary. It gives patients access to information about all available 
treatments and not just the cheapest. Whether it's emergency care, 
pursuing treatment by an appropriate specialist, providing women with 
direct access to an OB-GYN, or giving a patient a chance to try an 
innovative new treatment that could save their life--these are rights 
that all Americans in health plans should have. And questions 
concerning these rights should be answered by caring physicians and 
concerned families--not by a calculator. This bill puts these decisions 
back in human hands where they belong.
  This legislation will also make sure these rights are enforceable by 
allowing patients to hold health plans accountable for the decisions 
they make. First, all health plans must have an external appeals 
process in place, so that patients who challenge HMO decisions may take 
their case to an independent panel of medical experts. The External 
Reviewer must be independent from the plan, and they must be able to 
take valid medical evidence into account when deciding whether a 
treatment was inappropriately denied. The vast majority of disputes can 
and will be resolved using this external review process.
  I was pleased that during the course of this debate, the Senate 
adopted an amendment that further clarified the rules of the external 
review process. I shared the concerns of Wisconsin employers and 
insurers that the original version could have potentially allowed an 
external reviewer to order coverage of a medical service that the 
health plan specifically disallowed in its plan. I strongly support the 
creation of a strong, independent external review process to address 
disputes between a patient and their insurer over whether a service is 
medically necessary. At the same time, I believe employers who offer 
their employees health care coverage and enter into a contract with a 
health plan should have a level of certainty as to the specific 
services that are not covered under the plan.
  That is why I voted for the McCain-Bayh-Carper amendment, which 
preserves the sanctity of the contract and makes it crystal clear that 
a reviewer may not order coverage of any treatment that is specifically 
excluded or limited under the plan. At the same time, it still allows 
reviewers to order coverage of medically necessary services that are in 
dispute. In addition, if a health plan felt that a reviewer had a 
pattern of ordering care of questionable medical benefit, the plan 
could appeal to the secretary to have that reviewer decertified.
  I recognize that some preferred the approach offered by Senators 
Nelson and Kyl in addressing this issue. However, I opposed the Nelson-
Kyl amendment because it went a step too far. By attempting to have the 
Federal Government create a national definition of ``medical 
necessity,'' it would create a regulatory nightmare for patients and 
providers, and could potentially result in a definition that nobody 
supports and is too rigid to move with the advances in medical 
technology and treatment. The compromise amendment offered by Senator 
McCain struck a more appropriate balance by protecting the sanctity of 
health plan contracts while allowing patients real recourse through an 
external appeal for medical necessity disputes.
  Beyond the external review process, if a health plan's decision to 
deny or delay care results in death or injury to the patient, this bill 
ensures that the health plan can be held accountable for its actions. 
And this bill, as amended, includes clear protections for employers. I 
was pleased to support the amendment offered by Senators Snowe and 
Nelson which further clarified the difficult issue of employer 
liability.
  Let me make it clear that our main objective is to make sure that 
patients have access to the treatments they need and deserve, and that 
if a health plan wrongly delays or denies treatment that causes injury 
or death, that patients can hold their health plans accountable--just 
like they would hold their doctor accountable if their doctor's action 
caused injury or death. In other words, the patient should be able to 
hold accountable that entity who directly made the decision to deny 
care, and I think it's critical that we shield from liability all 
employers who had no hand in making that decision.
  That is why I supported the amendment by Senators Snowe and Nelson, 
which provides strong protections for employers from being sued by 
allowing them to choose a ``designated decisionmaker'' to be in charge 
of making medical decisions and to take on all liability risk. In the 
case of an employer

[[Page 12475]]

who offers a fully insured health plan, the health insurance company 
which the employer contracts with is deemed to be that designated 
decisionmaker, and the employer is therefore protected from lawsuits. 
In the case of an employer that offers a self-insured health plan, that 
employer may contract with a third-party administrator to administer 
the benefits of the plan. That third party administrator would agree to 
be the designated decisionmaker and the employer is shielded from 
lawsuits. Only those employers that act as insurers and directly make 
medical decisions for their employees can be held accountable. This 
group accounts for only approximately 5 percent of all employers in the 
country.
  This bill now makes it clear that employers--who voluntarily provide 
health coverage to their employees and the vast majority of which do 
not act as insurers by making medical decisions--are shielded from 
lawsuits. This is in total agreement with President Bush's stated 
principles of a Patients Bill of Rights he could sign, where he said, 
and I quote: ``Only employers who retain responsibility for and make 
final medical decisions should be subject to suit.'' That is exactly 
what this bill does. It is one of the main keys to making the rights in 
this bill enforceable, and I strongly urge that this right be retained 
in any bill that is sent to the President.
  Most importantly, this bill gives all of these protections to ALL 
Americans in managed health care plans, not just a few. All 170 million 
Americans in managed health plans deserve the same protections--no 
matter what State they live in.
  As someone who comes from a business background, I understand the 
concerns of employers. Some of my colleagues on the other side have 
claimed that our bill will increase health care costs so much that it 
will make it impossible for employers and families to afford coverage. 
But the Congressional Budget Office reported that the patient 
protections in our bill will only increase premiums by 4.2 percent over 
5 years. This translates into only $1.19 per month for the average 
employee. CBO also found that the provision to hold health plans 
accountable--the provision the other side opposes the most and claim 
would cause health care costs to skyrocket--would only account for 40 
cents of that amount. An independent study by Coopers and Lybrand 
indicates that the cost of the liability provisions is potentially less 
than that, estimating that premiums would increase between three and 13 
cents a month per enrollee, or 0.03 percent. This is a small price to 
pay to make sure that health plans cover the health care services we 
all deserve.
  I believe this bill meets the President's principles for a real 
Patients Bill of Rights, and I hope that when the House passes its 
bill, we can come together and send a bill to the President he will 
sign. The time has come to end this debate and finally act to protect 
patients. There is no reason whatsoever to continue to allow health 
plans to skimp on quality in the name of saving profits. Patients have 
been in the waiting room long enough. It is time for the Senate to act 
and make sure they receive the health care they need, deserve, and pay 
for.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the lobbying on this bill has been 
intensive. There's been a great deal of coverage in recent weeks about 
the wealthy interests that have collided over whether the nation should 
have a Patients' Bill of Rights, and what that bill should look like.
  I think even the media has had a tough time figuring out which side 
of this debate has the power of the ``special interests'' on their 
side. Some have said the money is on the side of the McCain-Kennedy-
Edwards bill, since interests supporting the bill include the American 
Association of Trial Lawyers, the American Medical Association, and 
labor unions like AFSCME.
  Others say that the special interests are weighing in against the 
Patients Bill of Rights, because of the powerful business and insurance 
coalitions fighting to defeat this legislation.
  So who is right. Where is the money in this debate? The answer is 
simple, there are donors on both sides. Wealthy interests aren't 
aligned exclusively on one side or the other. So for the information of 
my colleagues and the public, I thought I would take a moment to call 
the bankroll by examining the donations the interests on both sides 
have given in the last election cycle.
  I will start with massive effort to defeat this legislation, brought 
to us by a coalition of insurance and business interests that represent 
some of the most powerful donors in the campaign finance system today.
  Opposition to McCain-Edwards-Kennedy is being spearheaded by the 
Health Benefits Coalition. An analysis by the Center for Responsive 
Politics puts the cumulative donations of the members of the Health 
Benefits Coalition at $12.9 million in the last election cycle. That 
figure includes soft money, PAC money and individual contributions made 
by the members of the Coalition.
  The Coalition includes corporate members such as Blue Cross/Blue 
Shield, Aetna Inc., and Humana Inc. But perhaps more importantly, the 
Coalition also includes major business and insurance associations. 
These organizations include the Chamber of Commerce, the Business 
Roundtable, the American Association of Health Plans, the Health 
Insurance Association of America, the National Retail Federation, the 
National Restaurant Association, and the Food Marketing Institute, to 
name just a few. And of course whenever organizations like these join 
together in a legislative fight, they carry with them the collective 
clout of all the major political donors they represent.
  The Health Insurance Association of America is an enormous coalition 
of the insurance industry. The insurance industry itself gave nearly 
$40.7 million in PAC, soft, and individual donations in the 2000 
election cycle.
  The American Association of Health Plans, the trade association for 
HMOs and PPOs, spent a total of nearly $2.5 million on lobbying in 1999 
alone. According to a recent New York Times article, AAHP has budgeted 
$3 to $5 million to make their case against the Patients' Bill of 
Rights, and they are willing to spend, quote, ``whatever it takes,'' 
unquote, to get the job done.
  The Business Roundtable also has spent money on an ad campaign 
against the bill, and so has the Health Benefits Coalition itself.
  The cumulative clout of these expenditures, lobbying expenditures, 
soft money, PAC money and ad campaigns, from some of the biggest and 
most powerful organizations in Washington, hasn't gone unnoticed. This 
is an all-out blitz.
  And this bankroll wouldn't be complete without a description of some 
of the interests giving their support to provisions in this bill: The 
American Medical Association, the Association of Trial Lawyers of 
America, and labor unions, including the American Federation of State, 
County and Municipal Employees.
  According to the Center for Responsive Politics, AFSCME gave more 
than $8.5 million in soft, PAC and individual contributions in the last 
election cycle. The Association of Trial Lawyers of America gave more 
than $3.6 million in PAC, soft and individual contributions during that 
same period, and the AMA gave more than $2 million.
  We don't know yet whether the will of the people will be heard above 
the din of lobbying calls, TV ad blitzes and the cutting of soft money 
checks to the political parties. I hope we pass a strong Patients' Bill 
of Rights. But whatever the outcome of this bill, we have to ask 
ourselves if this is the way we want to legislate, and the way we want 
our democracy to function. I think when the public hears that this 
debate pits wealthy interests against each other--in some kind of 
showdown at Gucci Gulch--they tune us out, because suddenly it's no 
longer about them, it's just another story about how big money rules 
American politics. And when that's the case, all of us lose, no matter 
which side of this debate we're on, because our legislative process is 
diminished, and the American people's faith in us is diminished along 
with it. I thank the chair and I yield the floor.

[[Page 12476]]


  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today's passage of the Bipartisan Patient 
Protection Act marks a major step forward in the struggle for a 
meaningful Patients' Bill of Rights. I am hopeful that with the 
adoption of this landmark legislation, patients throughout the country 
can feel a sense of relief knowing their rights will now be protected.
  Over the past two decades, our Nation's healthcare delivery system 
has seen a seismic transformation. Rapidly rising healthcare costs have 
encouraged the development and expansion of managed care organizations, 
specifically health maintenance organizations. Unfortunately, the 
zealous efforts of HMOs to contain these costs have ended up 
compromising patient care and stripping away much of the authority of 
doctors to make decisions about the best care for their patients.
  During the past several years, many Vermonters have let me know about 
the problems they face when seeking health care for themselves and 
their families. Like most Americans, they want: greater access to 
specialists; the freedom to continue to be treated by their own 
doctors, even if they switch health plans; health care providers, not 
accounting clerks at HMOs, to make decisions about their care and 
treatment; HMOs to be held accountable for their negligence.
  The Bipartisan Patient Protection Act is the solution that Americans 
have called for--patient protections that cover all Americans in all 
health plans by ensuring the medical needs of patients are not 
secondary to the bottom line of their HMO.
  Too many times, I have heard from Vermonters who have faced 
difficulty in accessing the most appropriate healthcare professional to 
meet their needs. This legislation will solve that problem by giving 
Vermonters--and all Americans who suffer from life-threatening, 
degenerative and disabling conditions--the right to access standing 
referrals to specialists, so they do not have to make unnecessary 
visits to their primary care physician for repeated referrals. These 
patients will also be able to designate a specialist as their primary 
care physician, if that person is best able to coordinate their care.
  This legislation makes important strides in allowing patients access 
to a health care provider outside of their plan when their own plan's 
network of physicians does not include a specialist that can provide 
them the care they need. This provision is especially important for 
rural areas, like many parts of Vermont, which tend to not have an 
excess of health care providers. Women will now be able to have direct 
access to their OB/GYN and pediatricians can be designated as primary 
care providers for children.
  If an individual gets hurt and needs unexpected emergency medical 
care, the Bipartisan Patient Protection Act takes important steps to 
ensure access to emergency room care without a referral. If a woman is 
suffering from breast cancer, this bill will protect her right to have 
the routine costs of participation in a potentially life-saving 
clinical trial covered by her plan. This bill puts into place a wide 
range of additional protections that are essential to allowing doctors 
to provide the best care they can and to allow patients to receive the 
services they deserve.
  Many of our States have already adopted patient protection laws. My 
home State of Vermont is one state that currently has a comprehensive 
framework of protections in place. This Federal legislation will not 
prohibit Vermont or any other state from maintaining or further 
developing their own patient protections so long as the laws are 
comparable to the Federal standard. I am pleased that this bill will 
allow states like Vermont to maintain many of their innovative efforts, 
while also ensuring that patients in states that currently have no laws 
in place will receive the basic protections they deserve.
  Each of the important protections I have highlighted will only be 
meaningful if HMOs are held accountable for their decisions. The key to 
enforcing these patient protections rests in strong liability 
provisions that complement an effective and responsive appeals process. 
The Bipartisan Patient Protection Act provides patients with the right 
to hold their HMO liable for decisions that result in irreparable harm 
or death. Managed care organizations are one of the very few parties in 
this country that are shielded from being held accountable for their 
bad decisions. The time has come for that to change. Opponents of 
patients' rights legislation have been vocal in suggesting that by 
allowing patients to hold HMOs liable in court, there will be an 
explosion of lawsuits, causing the costs of healthcare insurance to 
skyrocket. This has not been the case in states like Texas, that have 
already enacted strong patient protections. Rather, it has been shown 
that most cases are resolved through the external appeals process and 
that only a very small fraction of cases ever reach the court room. 
Under this legislation, a patient must exhaust all internal and 
external appeals before going to court.
  I have heard from many Vermonters concerned about the potential 
impact of new HMO liability provisions on employers. I am disappointed 
that the opponents of this legislation have exploited and 
misrepresented this part of the bill. Rather than attempting to 
alleviate concerns by explaining the liability provisions, they have 
instead resorted to a scare tactic strategy. If you listen to some 
opponents of this bill, you would think that any employer who offers 
health coverage will be sued. I would like to take this opportunity to 
clarify some of the facts.
  The Bipartisan Patient Protection Act protects employers with a 
strong shield that only makes the employer accountable when he or she 
directly participates in health treatment decisions. The bill also 
clearly states that employers cannot be held responsible for the 
actions of managed care companies unless they actively make the 
decision to deny a health care service to a patient. This only occurs 
in about five percent of businesses --generally those employers large 
enough to run their own health plan. Those few companies that directly 
participate in the decision to deny a health care benefit to a patient, 
should accept legal responsibility for those decisions.
  After nearly 5 years of debate in Congress, the American people are 
finally closing in on the patients' rights and protections they 
deserve. But there is still more work to be done. The House of 
Representatives must consider this important issue in a timely manner 
and I am hopeful their bill will include provisions similar to the 
bipartisan patient protection legislation passed in the Senate. Most 
importantly, I am hopeful that President Bush will hear the voices of 
Americans and not those of the special interests and their well-
financed lobbyists, and sign this important legislation into law. The 
American people have spoken; the time for enacting strong patient 
protections is long overdue.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am proud to support the bipartisan 
McCain-Kennedy Patients Bill of Rights. It is legislation that is long 
overdue. Time and again, we have heard the 180 million Americans 
enrolled in managed care demand patient rights. Time and again, Members 
of this Senate have promised to provide them those rights. Finally, 
with the Patients Bill of Rights legislation before us, we stand ready 
to deliver.
  The McCain-Kennedy Patients Bill of Rights ensures Americans that 
they can receive the very health care they pay for. In exchange for 
their monthly premiums, patients deserve a guarantee that they can see 
their own doctor, visit a specialist, and go to the closest emergency 
room; a guarantee that their doctor can discuss the best options for 
treatment, not just the cheapest; and a guarantee that their doctor's 
orders will be followed by their HMO. The McCain-Kennedy bill 
guarantees all of those rights.
  When those rights are violated, and harm results from the delayed 
application or outright denial of treatment, the McCain-Kennedy bill 
guarantees patients that they can hold their health plan accountable. 
And, that is what all of the rights to access care hinge upon--the 
ability to hold a health plan liable if access to care is denied.

[[Page 12477]]

  We have spent days on the floor of the Senate debating the issue of 
liability. But, the argument here is simple. In this country, if the 
decision of an individual or corporation results in harm or death to a 
consumer, the decisionmaker is held accountable. That holds true for 
every individual, and for every company except an HMO. HMOs, businesses 
who make countless decisions daily that affect the health of millions 
of Americans, do not face this same accountability. The number of 
patients who are suffering as a result is staggering.
  Every day, 35,000 patients in managed care plans have necessary care 
delayed. Too many of these patients pay the ultimate price for the 
callousness displayed by these managed care plans. I would like to 
share the story of one woman from my state of Massachusetts who lost 
her life after being denied care by her HMO.
  Mrs. White was diagnosed with leukemia in October 1997, and was 
unable to find a bone marrow match for transplant. After 2 years of 
battling the disease she went into remission. She then learned that 
Massachusetts General Hospital was working with a newly-developed anti-
rejection drug which would allow patients like herself, with less than 
perfectly-matched donors, to have bone marrow transplants. But, her HMO 
denied her care the day before she was due to be admitted to the 
hospital.
  Six months later, Mrs. White enrolled in a new health plan which 
covered the costs of the transplant. However, during the 6-month 
impasse, Mrs. White fell out of remission, and her body was less able 
to sustain the new bone marrow. She died 3 months after the procedure 
was performed.
  Real stories like these demonstrate why HMOs must be held accountable 
for their decisions. Real people like Mrs. White are the reasons why 
there are liability provisions in the McCain-Kennedy Patients Bill of 
Rights--liability protections that allow patients to sue their health 
plans in state court when an HMO's decision to withhold or limit care 
results in injury or death. My colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle seek to misconstrue that point. But, let's be clear: this bill 
establishes the right to sue an HMO as a protection for America's 
patients, not as a reward to America's trial lawyers.
  Opponents of the Kennedy-McCain Patients Bill of Rights have 
predicted that the liability language in the bill will cause a future 
flood of frivolous lawsuits against managed care companies. But recent 
history paints a very different picture.
  The President's home State of Texas enacted a patients bill of 
rights--which includes a provision to hold HMOs accountable--in 1997, 
albeit without the support of then-Governor Bush. Since that time, 17 
lawsuits have been brought against managed care insurers in Texas. Let 
me repeat that--17 lawsuits in 4 years. That is a trickle, not a flood, 
of litigation.
  Mr. President, no one wants to encourage unnecessary lawsuits that 
increase the cost of providing health care. That is why the McCain-
Kennedy bill sets out a comprehensive internal and external review 
process that seeks to remedy complaints before they reach a courtroom. 
Except in cases of irreparable harm or death, patients must exhaust 
this review process before pursuing a legal remedy.
  But we must establish a legal remedy. A right without legal recourse 
fails to exist. The liability provision in this legislation simply 
establishes a mechanism by which to enforce the very patient 
protections it provides. Managed care insurers can easily avoid any 
liability, as long as they act responsibly and ensure that their 
patients receive the quality medical care prescribed for them by their 
physicians.
  Let's be clear about another issue.
  As chairman of the Small Business Committee, I am well aware of the 
substantial challenges small businesses face in providing employee 
benefits while holding down costs. I understand the concerns small 
business owners have over the Kennedy-McCain bill's potential to expose 
them to liability for the sole, laudable initiative of offering health 
insurance coverage to their employees. But that is not the intent of 
this legislation.
  The McCain-Kennedy bill only holds accountable those employers who 
directly participate in the medical decisions governing an employee's 
care if harm or injury occurs. The logic here is simple. If employers 
act like HMOs, it is only fair that they be held to the same 
accountability standards. For employers who do not directly participate 
in these medical decision there should be no liability.
  I understand that many businesses remain weary of the safeguards 
against employer liability that are included in the Kennedy-McCain 
legislation. Negotiations are underway to strike a compromise and 
strengthen these safeguards so that we may arrive at a Patients Bill of 
Rights that we all can support. I join all of my colleagues in hoping 
that those negotiations bear fruit.
  Another attack on this Patients Bill of Rights legislation that we 
have heard--not just in this chamber but across the television 
airwaves--is that this bill will cause insurance premiums to increase 
dramatically. Nothing could be further from the truth. According to the 
most recent estimate from the Congressional Budget Office, this 
legislation will cause premiums to increase an average of 4.2 percent a 
year. For the average employee, that equates to $1.19 per month in 
additional premiums, a small price to pay for meaningful patients 
rights extended in this bill.
  Many of my colleagues across the aisle argue that this minor increase 
will cause large numbers of Americans to become uninsured when, in 
fact, no evidence exists to support this. Nevertheless, I am encouraged 
by their concern for the uninsured in our country, the 43 million 
Americans--the 15 percent of our population--who have no health care 
coverage at all. I challenge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
to continue the discourse on this critical issue and look forward to 
working towards extending health coverage to every American once we 
have passed this bipartisan Patients Bill of Rights.
  The McCain-Kennedy Patients' Bill of Rights legislation has 
widespread support from patients groups and health care providers--the 
two parties that we should really be focused on in this debate. To 
date, over 500 health care provider and patients' rights groups have 
endorsed our bill.
  An April 2001 Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that 85 percent of 
Americans supported a comprehensive Patients' Bill of Rights that 
includes provisions to hold HMOs accountable. Mr. President, patients 
and health care providers have spoken loud and clear. They want 
expanded rights for patients now, rights that our legislation will 
provide. I urge all of my colleagues to pass the McCain-Kennedy 
Patients Bill of Rights.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise to talk specifically about how 
important the Patients' Bill of Rights is to improving the mental 
health care Americans receive.
  For far too long, mental health consumers have been discriminated 
against in the health care system--subjected to discriminatory cost-
sharing, limited access to specialists, and other barriers to needed 
services.
  This is particularly true of the mental health care that children 
receive. More children suffer from psychiatric illness than from 
Leukemia, AIDS and diabetes combined. Yet, while we recognize the human 
costs of these physical illnesses, we often forget the cost of 
untreated psychiatric illness. For young people, these costs include 
lost occupational opportunities because of academic failure, increased 
substance abuse, more physical illness, and, unfortunately, increased 
likelihood of physical aggression to themselves or others.
  That is why I am so pleased that McCain-Edwards-Kennedy goes a long 
way towards addressing the inequities in mental health care and 
ensuring access to needed mental health care services.
  For example, the proposal ensures access to critical prescription 
drugs.
  We have made tremendous progress in developing medication to treat 
mental illnesses. Although medication is

[[Page 12478]]

often only one component of effective treatment for mental illnesses, 
access to the newest and most effective of these medications is crucial 
to successful treatment and recovery.
  These new medications are more effective, have fewer side effects, 
and save money in the long run. Yet unfortunately, all too often 
managed care organizations prevent patients from accessing these life-
saving drugs.
  How? They use restrictive formularies that restrict access to 
preferred drugs--often the newer and more effective ones. The HMO's 
are, in effect, undermining our own drug regulations and approval 
processes.
  Fortunately, the bipartisan McCain-Edwards-Kennedy Patients' Bill of 
Rights protects patients by providing exceptions from the formulary 
when medically indicated. So, when a doctor thinks a certain medication 
is the best treatment for a patient, that patient will get that 
medication.
  Also--and this is a critical difference with the Breaux-Frist 
alternative--our bill requires that non-formulatory medication be 
subject to same cost-sharing requirements. Breaux-Frist does not--
continuing the discriminatory treatment of mental health treatments.
  The McCain-Edwards-Kennedy proposal is also superior for mental 
health care because it ensures access to specialists. The bill allows 
standing referrals--so that primary care providers do not have to 
continue authorizing visits. It also requires plans to allow patient 
access to non-participating providers if the plan's network is 
insufficient. So that patients can see the provider who can best meet 
their needs. The Breaux-Frist plan--in another contrast--does not allow 
access to out-of-network specialists.
  In the end, this can result in more costly treatment. And for some 
illnesses, the longer the duration or the greater the number of 
significant episodes, the harder to treat and more intractable the 
disease becomes.
  Finally, the McCain-Edwards-Kennedy proposal, unlike Breaux-Frist, 
provides the right to a speedy and genuinely independent external 
review process when care is denied.
  Let me just tell the personal story of a constituent of mine to 
illustrate the importance of these protections. Earlier this year, a 
mother in Gloucester County, NJ wrote to me about problems she had 
encountered getting treatment for her daughter. Her teenage daughter 
had attempted suicide, and been hospitalized for 8 days. She was 
diagnosed with depression and borderline personality disorder, and both 
her physician and therapist recommended intensive outpatient therapy, 
called ``partial care'' therapy. But the managed behavioral care 
organization determined that this treatment was not ``medically 
necessary.'' Instead of the intensive five and a half hour, twice a 
week therapy program, the insurer wanted to send her for one hour a 
week of therapy. This, despite the recommendation of her physician and 
therapist.
  Like any loving parent would, the mother fought back, calling the 
company many times. She was told to wait--even though, to quote her 
letter, her daughter ``was self-mutilating and her behavior was 
becoming dangerous to herself and possibly others.'' The mother finally 
enlisted the help of several people at the treatment program, who also 
wrangled with the company, and she even wrote to my office, and I wrote 
to the company on their behalf. Eventually, the company relented, and 
her daughter is now doing well in that intensive eleven hour a week 
program.
  But it shouldn't have to be like that for families. Doctors, not 
insurers, should decide what treatment a patient receives. When a 
physician says that a certain therapy is necessary to help a suicidal 
teenager, an insurance company should cover it. As my constituent so 
poignantly wrote to me about her daughter, and I quote: ``This 
treatment is important and necessary [because] by learning the skills 
she needs to cope with her illness she can have a safe, normal, 
adolescence and adult life. If we address this illness now instead of 
waiting until the next time she hurts herself we have a better chance 
of her leading a happy and normal life.''
  Unfortunately, a study by the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill 
found that less than half of surveyed managed behavioral health care 
companies define suicide attempt as a medical emergency.
  This year, 2,500 teenagers will commit suicide in the United States. 
Over 10 million children and adolescents have a diagnosable psychiatric 
illness that results in a academic failure, social isolation and 
increased difficulty functioning in adulthood. Only one out of five 
will get any care and even less will get the appropriate level of care 
they need and deserve.
  So unless we provide critical patient protections, including the 
right to a fair and independent appeals process for review of medical 
necessity decisions, more families like my constituent will have to 
wonder if an insurance company will cover critical care that a doctor 
has prescribed for a loved one.
  In sum, the McCain-Edwards-Kennedy bill will provide people access to 
the mental health care they need to lead healthy, productive lives. I 
am pleased to support it.


                      harkin peer-review amendment

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, for too long, American families have been 
left in the waiting room while HMOs refuse to provide the health care 
services that families need and deserve. The results have often been 
tragic.
  Now we are on the verge of a big victory for the American people--
passing a meaningful Patient's Bill of Rights. S. 1052 represents the 
culmination of five long years of bi-partisan work to ensure that 
patients in managed care get the medical services they need, deserve, 
and have paid for. We have debated this issue for years, negotiated 
differences of opinion to find common ground, and worked across party 
lines to develop the best bill possible.
  S. 1052 truly represents the best of all our collective ideas and 
most importantly, meets the needs of the American people.
  Let me say that again. This bill--the McCain-Edwards-Kennedy bill--
meets the needs of the American people. And when you cut through the 
rhetoric and political posturing, that is what this debate is all 
about--guaranteeing the American people basic and fundamental health 
care rights.
  One of the cornerstones of a meaningful Patients' Bill of Rights is 
access to a swift internal review and a fair and independent external 
appeals process. Without a strong review system in place--where real 
medical experts make the decisions and not the HMO accountants--all the 
other protections would be compromised.
  Our amendment would strengthen the review system to ensure the 
integrity of the appeals process and protect patients by requiring that 
the appropriate health care professional makes the medical decision. It 
ensures that health care professionals who can best assess the medical 
necessity, appropriateness, and standard of care, make determinations 
regarding coverage of a denied service.
  As currently drafted, S. 1052 only requires that physicians 
participate in the review process. While the bill does not prohibit 
non-physician providers from participating in a review at a physicians 
discretion, it does not guarantee their involvement in relevant medical 
reviews.
  I think we all agree that the intent of the appeals process is to put 
medical decisions in the hands of the best and most appropriate health 
care providers. In many cases, this will undoubtably be a physician. 
However, when the treatment denied is prescribed by a non-physician 
provider, it is critical that the case be reviewed by a provider with 
similar training and expertise.
  For example, when a 59-year-old man fell in his home, he experienced 
increased swelling, decreased balance, decreased range of motion. 
decreased strength and increased pain in his right ankle and knee. A 
physical therapy treatment plan would have included specific exercises 
to increase strength, range of motion, and balance--enabling the 
patient to better perform activities of daily living and to prevent 
further deterioration of his health.
  A reviewer who was not a licensed physical therapist, and did not 
have

[[Page 12479]]

the expertise, background, or experience as a physical therapist, 
denied physical therapy coverage.
  Without physical therapy intervention, the patient was severely 
limited in activity and spent significant time in bed. The time in bed 
resulted in further deterioration of the original problems and the 
development of wounds from the prolonged static position in bed.
  A physical therapist reviewer would have recognized the importance of 
patient mobility while in bed to prevent bedsores and interventions to 
improve the patient's function with his right ankle and knee to enable 
him to independently walk.
  Utilizing health care professionals with appropriate expertise and 
experience in the delivery of a service that has been denied by a 
health plan guarantees beneficiaries the best possible review of their 
appeal.
  My amendment is supported by a wide range of health care 
professionals, including:
  The American Association of Nurse Anesthetists, The American 
Chiropractic Association, The American College of Nurse Midwives, The 
American College of Nurse Practitioners, The American Occupational 
Therapy Association, The American Optometric Association, The American 
Pharmaceutical Association, The American Physical Therapy Association, 
The American Podiatric Medical Association, The American Society for 
Clinical Laboratory Science, The American Speech-Language-Hearing 
Association, The National Association of Orthopaedic Nurses, The 
National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners, The National 
Association of Social Workers, and The Center for Patient Advocacy.
  I do not believe that non-physician providers were deliberately 
excluded from the review process. In fact, just the opposite is true--I 
believe it was the intent of the bill's authors to develop the best 
possible review process. However, unless my amendment is adopted, I 
worry that we will fall short of our shared goal of giving patient's 
access to the best and most appropriate health care services in every 
instance.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the patient 
protection legislation currently before the Senate. Over the past 
decade, as private health coverage has shifted from traditional 
insurance towards managed care, many consumers have expressed the fear 
they might be denied the health care they need by a health plan that 
focuses more on cost than on quality.
  In response to these concerns, the Senate has considered several 
bills to provide sensible patient protections to Americans in managed 
care plans. During the last Congress, the Senate took at least 19 
rollcall votes and passed two pieces of comprehensive patient 
protection legislation. Like many of my colleagues, I found these 
debates quite instructive, in that they called the Senate's attention 
to the numerous areas where there already exists a great deal of 
bipartisan agreement.
  I believe that every American ought to have access to an emergency 
room. No parent should ever be forced to consider bypassing the nearest 
hospital for a desperately ill child in favor of one that is in their 
health plan's provider network. If you have what any normal person 
would consider an emergency, you should be able to go to the nearest 
hospital for treatment, period.
  I believe that every American ought to be able to designate a 
pediatrician as their child's primary care physician. This common-sense 
reform would allow parents to take their child to one of their plan's 
pediatricians without having to get a referral from their family's 
primary care physician.
  I believe a doctor should be free to discuss treatment alternatives 
with a patient and provide them with their best medical advice, 
regardless of whether or not those treatment options are covered by the 
health plan. Gag clauses are contractual agreements between a doctor 
and an HMO that restrict the doctor's ability to discuss freely with 
the patient information about the patient's diagnosis, medical care, 
and treatment options. We all agree that this practice is wrong and 
have voted repeatedly to prohibit it.
  I believe that consumers have a right to know important information 
about the products they are purchasing, and health insurance is no 
different. Health plans ought to provide their enrollees with plainly 
written descriptions of the plan's benefits, cost sharing requirements, 
and definition of medical necessity. This will ensure that informed 
consumers can make the health care choices that are in their best 
interests and hopefully prevent disputes between patients and their 
plans.
  In addition, the following examples highlight areas of bi-partisan 
agreement: Cancer Clinical Trials--Health plans ought to cover the 
routine costs of participating in clinical trials for patients with 
cancer; Point of Service Options--Health plans for large employers 
ought to offer a point of service option so that patient's can go to a 
doctor outside their plan's network, even if it means paying a little 
more; Continuity of Care--We ought to ensure that pregnant and 
terminally ill patients aren't forced to switch doctor's in the middle 
of their treatment; Formulary Reform--Health plans ought to include the 
participation of doctors and pharmacists when developing their 
prescription drug plans, commonly known as formularies; and Self-Pay 
for Behavioral Health Services--Individuals who want to pay for mental 
health services out of their own pockets ought to be allowed to do so.
  These are items for which there is broad support among Democrats, 
Republicans, the White House, and most importantly, the American 
people. While their may not be unanimous agreement on every detail, I 
believe these disagreements could be resolved in relatively short 
order.
  This may lead one to ask one very important question , ``If these 
ideas are so popular, why haven't they already been enacted?"
  The answer is very simple, lawsuits. The Kennedy-McCain bill insists 
on vast new powers to sue. Leafing with abandon through the yellow 
pages under the word ``attorney'' is not what most Americans would call 
health care reform.
  Simply put, I believe that when you are sick, you need to go to a 
doctor, not a lawyer. I am opposed to increasing litigation for the 
simple reasons that it will drive up premiums, force 21,000 Kentuckians 
out of the health insurance market, prevent millions more uninsured 
from being able to purchase insurance, and aggravate an already 
seriously flawed medical malpractice system. I am opposed to exposing 
employers to onerous lawsuits, simply for doing what's right by their 
employees and providing them with health insurance. We ought to herald 
these employers, not sue them. While I am pleased the Senate adopted 
Ms. Snowe's additional employer protections, I am still concerned that 
millions of Americans may lose access to the quality health care that 
their employers provide.
  The proponents of these costly new liability provisions contend that 
you can't hold plans accountable without expanding the right to sue 
employers and insurers. I couldn't disagree more. The proper way to 
ensure that plans are held accountable is to provide strong, 
independent external appeals procedures to ensure that patients receive 
the care they need. Far too many Americans are concerned that their 
health plan can deny them care. I believe that if a health plan denies 
a treatment on the basis that it is experimental or not medically 
necessary, a patient needs the ability to appeal that decision. The 
reviewer must be an independent, medical expert with expertise in the 
diagnosis and treatment of the condition under review. In routine 
reviews, the independent reviewer must make a decision within 30 days, 
but in urgent cases, they must do so in 72 hours. After all, when you 
are sick, don't you really need an appointment with your doctor, not 
your lawyer.
  As if driving 1.26 million Americans out of the health insurance 
market wasn't reason enough to oppose the Kennedy-McCain bill, I am 
also strongly opposed to expanding liability because it exacerbates the 
problems in our already flawed medical malpractice

[[Page 12480]]

system. I might not be so passionate in my opposition to new medical 
malpractice lawsuits, if lawsuits were an efficient mechanism for 
compensating patients who were truly harmed by negligent actions. 
Unfortunately, the data shows just the opposite. In 1996, researchers 
at the Harvard School of Public Health performed a study of 51 
malpractice cases, which was published in the New England Journal of 
Medicine. In approximately half of those cases, the patient had not 
even been harmed, yet in many instances the doctor settled the matter 
out of court, presumably just to rid themselves of the nuisance and 
avoid lawyer's fees and litigation costs. In the report's conclusion, 
the researchers found that ``there was no association between the 
occurrence of an adverse event due to negligence or an adverse event of 
any type and payment.'' In everyday terms, this means that the 
patient's injury had no relation to the amount of payment recieved or 
even whether or not payment was awarded.


  These lawsuits drag on for an average of 64 months--that is more than 
5 years. Even if at the end of this 64 months, only 43 cents of every 
dollar spent on medical liability actually reaches the victims of 
malpractice, source: RAND Corporation, 1985. Most of the rest of the 
judgement goes to the lawyers. That is right, over half of the injured 
person's damages are grabbed by the lawyers. Why would anyone want to 
expand this flawed system, which is so heavily skewed in favor of the 
personal injury lawyers?
  Prior to the first extensive debate on this legislation in the Senate 
in 1999, The Washington Post said that ``the threat of litigation is 
the wrong way to enforce the rational decision making that everyone 
claims to have as a goal'', source: The Washington Post 3/16/99, and 
that the Senate should enact an external appeals process ``before 
subjecting an even greater share of medical practice to the vagaries of 
litigation'', source: The Washington Post 7/13/99. More recently, the 
Post said that: ``Our instinct has been, and remains, that increasing 
access to the courts should be a last resort that Congress should first 
try in this bill to create a credible and mainly medical appellate 
system short of the courts for adjudicating the denial of care'', The 
Washington Post, 5/20/01. The Post is not alone in this view. My 
hometown paper, the Louisville Courier-Journal agreed when it stated 
that ``there is good reason to be wary of giving patients a broad right 
to sue.''
  Over the past two weeks, the Senate has had numerous opportunities to 
improve this legislation. Unfortunately, the Senate missed far too many 
of them. In particular, we missed an opportunity to improve Kennedy-
McCain bill when the Senate rejected Mr. Frist's Amendment, which would 
have established a more responsible mechanism for holding HMO's 
accountable in court and ensuring that patient's receive the care they 
need.
  As I noted earlier, I support a majority of the patient protections 
included in this bill. That is why I take no joy in voting against this 
legislation. However, my concern for the 21,000 Kentuckians who will 
lose insurance because of the vast expansion of liability included in 
this bill prevents me from being able to support it. My colleague from 
Kentucky, Dr. Ernie Fletcher, has developed a compromise proposal in 
the House of Representatives which represents an improvement over the 
bill the Senate just passed. Therefore, I am hopeful that the House of 
Representatives will improve this product and that the Conference 
Committee will return to the Senate a bill that I can support, and that 
the President can sign into law.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this is an important bill.
  I want to see a Patients' Bill of Rights signed into law, but I am 
afraid some of my colleagues here, on the other side of the aisle, have 
rejected any efforts to move the reasonable Frist-Breaux-Jeffords 
bipartisan, or I should say tri-partisan bill. They have put lawyers 
and litigation ahead of patients and medical care.
  I would like to say a few words on the liability provisions of this 
legislation.
  We all recognize that the liability provisions of this legislation 
are critical. These elements are key to providing patients with quality 
health care instead of extended court time.
  When I refer to the liability provisions, of course I am talking 
about a family of issues, including: exhaustion of appeals, employer 
liability, caps on damages, and class action lawsuits. Each of these is 
important, and indeed critical to patient care and health care 
delivery, and needs to be addressed and corrected before the President 
can sign a bill.
  With regard to the provision on exhaustion of appeals, I believe the 
Thompson amendment, which we just approved is certainly a big 
improvement over the McCain-Kennedy language. The amendment will make 
certain that no judicial proceedings commence prior to patients 
exhausting all of the internal and external review mechanisms. This is 
purely a common sense amendment, which properly maintains emphasis on 
speedy resolution of patient problems without lengthy and costly court 
proceedings.
  I want to emphasize that nothing in the amendment prohibits patients 
from having their day in court. Nor does this amendment prevent them 
from receiving immediate, needed care. It just requires them to go 
through the internal and external review process before going to court 
for damages. The amendment still allows for those patients who really 
need immediate care to get that care while they go through the 
administrative appeal process.
  It is important to underscore that no one will suffer irreparable 
harm under the amendment.
  To reiterate, this amendment does not prohibit patients from going to 
court for care; it simply asks them to go through internal and external 
review before going to court to seek liability and damages. What is 
wrong with that?
  If we go down the route of the McCain-Kennedy bill, we are not 
helping the patient get care. What we are doing is rendering both the 
internal and new external appeal process pointless. Why are we 
bothering to establish stricter standards for internal reviews and set 
up an external appeal process if the work of the appeals panel doesn't 
matter and can be bypassed through a judicial process? Unfortunately, 
that is exactly what McCain-Kennedy does--allows patients to bypass the 
administrative appeal process and go directly to court.
  The main difference between the McCain-Kennedy bill and the Thompson 
amendment is this--with Thompson, we emphasize care over court. The 
Thompson amendment places the emphasis where it should be--on 
guaranteeing that people get the health care that they need, when they 
need it.
  I believe the Thompson amendment is important in a number of ways. It 
will help curb unnecessary lawsuits. It provides patients with a fair 
review process. And most importantly, it codifies current law by 
allowing patients to file injunctive relief when they need immediate 
care.
  The Thompson amendment will not only protect the rights of patients 
but will also improve the McCain-Kennedy legislation.
  As far as employer liability is concerned, the language of the 
McCain-Kennedy legislation was completely unacceptable. The bill 
claimed to limit federal or state causes of action against a group 
health plan, employer, or plan sponsor, but it specifically authorizes 
a cause of action against an employer if such person or persons 
directly participated in the consideration of a claim for benefits and 
in doing so failed to exercise ordinary care. But, at the same time, 
the McCain-Kennedy bill specifically excluded any cause of action 
against a doctor or hospital.
  I think the Snowe-DeWine amendment adopted yesterday starts to 
address these concerns. The Snowe-DeWine language includes protections 
for employers who delegate plan decision making to a third party. It 
helps strengthen the definition of the designated decision maker so 
that some employers will not be unfairly exposed to liability. However, 
other employers would not be protected. I am serious

[[Page 12481]]

when I say this could result in employees losing health coverage. 
Employers will not want to chose between offering health insurance to 
their employees and opening themselves up to liability and huge court 
costs.
  I find it ironic that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, 
who always claim they are trying to find ways to lower the uninsured 
population, are actually pressing for legislation that will 
dramatically increase the uninsured population.
  And if you don't believe me, talk to any expert who is not a trial 
lawyer because the message is loud and clear that unless the bill is 
improved, health coverage will be severely jeopardized, and employees 
will lose their insurance. Is this the result that we want, especially 
in legislation that claims to be a Patients' Bill of Rights? I think 
not.
  As far as damage caps are concerned, the Frist-Breaux-Jeffords 
legislation is a step in the right direction. The McCain-Kennedy 
language is not.
  The problem with the current McCain-Kennedy legislation is that it 
allows patients to go both to federal and state court to collect 
damages. For federal causes of action, economic and non-economic 
damages are unlimited. And even though the bill's proponents claim 
there are no punitive damages provisions, as a former medical 
malpractice attorney, I know punitive damages when I see them.
  Supporters of the McCain-Kennedy approach claim their bill doesn't 
allow punitive damages in federal court. That is absolutely not true. 
Under their bill, a defendant in federal court can be hit with up to $5 
million in ``civil assessment'' damages. Let's call it like it is. The 
purpose of the civil assessment is to punish providers, plain and 
simple. The bill includes no limits on state law damages. It is very 
apparent to everyone in this chamber that the trial lawyers have been 
principally involved in drafting these liability provisions and they 
have done so with their own interests in mind. This provision is simply 
not in the best interest of the American people.
  The McCain-Kennedy language allowing for unlimited damages is 
unworkable. Economic and non-economic damages are uncapped. In my 
opinion, non-economic damages should be capped.
  Another issue that is extremely important is class action. The 
McCain-Kennedy language had no restrictions on class actions on its 
newly permitted state causes of action nor for its newly created 
federal causes of action for damages. Fortunately, the DeWine language 
attempts to restrict the litigation nightmare that would have resulted 
from the McCain-Kennedy language.
  Finding common ground on these issues--exhaustion of appeals, 
employer liability, caps on damages and class action is crucial to the 
success of the Patients' Bill of Rights legislation. It is incumbent 
upon us to do this right and to do what is in the best interest of 
patients, not trial attorneys. I am confident that if we are all 
willing, we can make these provisions legally sound. We have spent far 
too many years on this issue not to do it right. We have a real 
opportunity to pass meaningful patients' rights legislation. Let's not 
squander this opportunity by acting expeditiously.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise to speak about an issue that has 
been touched upon by many people during this debate on the Patients' 
Bill of rights, the problem of the uninsured.
  Let me first say that I am very pleased that today we are passing a 
strong, enforceable Patients' Bill of Rights.
  I commend the bill's authors, Senators McCain, Edwards and Kennedy, 
for the tremendous job they have done in crafting a bipartisan bill 
that will provide strong patient protections and curb insurance company 
abuses.
  This legislation is an example of how, working together, we can 
improve the health care Americans receive. But it is just the first of 
many steps we should be taking to ensure that all Americans receive 
quality health care.
  During the debate on the Patients' Bill of Rights I have heard many 
Senators argue that this legislation will lead to more uninsured 
Americans. Indeed, some of my colleagues have faulted supporters of the 
bill for not doing anything to help the uninsured.
  As someone who have been talking about this issue for several years, 
I am thrilled to hear that my colleagues are concerned about the 
problem of the uninsured.
  It is a national disgrace that 42 million Americans do not have 
health insurance.
  Who are the uninsured? They are 17.5 percent of our nonelderly 
population. A shameful 25 percent are children. The majority--83 
percent--are in working families.
  The consequences of our Nation's significant uninsured population are 
devastating. The uninsured are significantly more likely to delay or 
forego needed care. The uninsured are less likely to receive preventive 
care. Delaying or not receiving treatment can lead to more serious 
illness and avoidable health problems. This in turn results in 
unnecessary and costly hospitalizations. Indeed, my own state of New 
Jersey struggles to deal with the costs of charity care provided to the 
uninsured.
  In 1999, for the first time in a decade we saw a slight decrease in 
the uninsured. But we still have so far to go.
  I believe that health care is a fundamental right, and neither the 
Government nor the private sector is doing enough to secure that right 
for everyone.
  We ignore the issue of the uninsured at our peril and at a great cost 
to the quality of life--and to the very life--of our citizens.
  That is why I am developing legislation that will provide universal 
access to health care for all Americans.
  My legislation will have several main components:
  Large employers would be required to provide health coverage for all 
their workers. The private sector must do its part--a minimum wage in 
America should include with it minimum benefits, among them health 
insurance. But unfortunately, the current system puts the responsible 
employer who provides health insurance at a disadvantage relative to 
the employers who do not.
  Small businesses, the self-employed and unemployed would be able to 
buy coverage in the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program. If it is 
good enough for Senators, it is good enough for America.
  Those who are between the ages of 55 and 64 would be able to buy-in 
to the Medicare program.
  And we would provide help to small businesses and to low-income 
workers.
  But although I am passionate about universal access to health care, I 
realize we can't get there yet. Not because the popular will is not 
there, but because the political will isn't.
  So I support incremental changes, starting with the most vulnerable 
populations, and building on Medicaid and CHIP, success public 
programs.
  I am working on a proposal that would expand Medicaid to cover all 
persons up to 200 percent of the Federal poverty level--an efficient 
way to reach nearly two-thirds of the uninsured.
  I am also a strong supporter of the Family Care proposal, which would 
cover the parents of children already enrolled in the CHIP program. My 
own state of New Jersey is in fact leading the way on the issue of 
enrolling parents with their kids.
  Finally, I was pleased to be an original cosponsor of Senator 
Bingaman's bipartisan legislation, the Start Healthy, Stay Healthy Act, 
which would expand coverage for children and pregnant women. It is 
based on the common sense principal that children deserve to start 
healthy and stay healthy.
  I often say that we are not a nation of equal outcomes, but we should 
be a nation of equal beginnings.
  Until we give all Americans access to health care, however, we cannot 
live up to that promise.
  But although we cannot get to universal access this year, I believe 
we can and should be doing all that we can to make incremental 
progress.
  In conclusion, I am heartened that in this debate on the Patient's 
Bill of Rights so many of my colleagues have expressed concern about 
the problem of

[[Page 12482]]

the uninsured. Indeed, I am hopeful that we have turned a corner on 
this critical issue.
  As we move forward, I welcome the opportunity to work with any of my 
colleagues, on either side of the aisle, to find ways to significantly 
address the problem of the uninsured. There can be no greater purpose 
to our work in the Senate.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the McCain-
Edwards-Kennedy Patients' Bill of Rights. It has been 4 years since the 
first managed care reform bill was introduced in Congress. After years 
of unyielding and unproductive debate, we came together this week to 
find common ground for the common good, and pass a bill that will 
significantly improve the quality of medical treatment for millions of 
American families. We have worked very hard to get to this day, and 
with the unfailing commitment of my colleagues on both sides, we have 
produced a bill that I am very proud to support.
  This bill does more than just provide new assurances to patients. It 
will provide a whole new framework for the delivery of health care in 
this country, helping to transform our managed care system from one in 
which health plans are immune for the life and death decisions they 
make every day to a more fair and accountable system for America's 
families.
  The purpose of this legislation has broad--and I emphasize broad--
bipartisan support. According to a CBS news poll from 6/20/01, 90 
percent of Americans support a Patients' Bill of Rights.
  Two years ago, 68 Republicans in the House of Representatives voted 
for the Norwood-Dingell Patients' Bill of Rights legislation that 
allowed patients to sue HMOs if they are denied a medical benefit that 
they need. The Ganske-Dingell bill in the House of Representatives 
currently has strong support from both Democrats and Republicans. I 
urge my colleagues in the House to take up the Ganske-Dingell Patients' 
Bill of Rights and pass it without delay so that we can send a bill to 
the president for signature.
  We need to enact a patients' bill of rights now. Every day that goes 
by, nearly 50,000 American people with private insurance have benefits 
delayed or denied by their health plans. These critical decisions made 
by health plans impact thousands of families at times of great stress 
and worry. Our most fundamental well-being depends on our health. 
Anyone who has had a sick family member can tell you of the anxiety 
they experience during a medical emergency or prolonged illness. It is 
our obligation and within our ability to make it easier for these 
families. This bill will do just that.
  Opponents of this legislation express concern that if this bill is 
signed into law, we will see a flood of lawsuits. I would like to point 
out that in the 4 years since Texas enacted legislation allowing 
patients to hold their health insurer liable for denying care, there 
have been very few lawsuits filed. Four million people in Texas are 
covered by that State's patient protection law. Only 17 lawsuits have 
been filed.
  The appeals process in this bill is fair and binding. With a strong 
and swift appeals process, patients should be able to receive the care 
they need, when they need it. The need for recourse in court should be 
minimal.
  It was never the intent of this legislation to encourage more 
lawsuits. The sole purpose for this bill is to deliver health care to 
the people who need it. I remain hopeful that as it is the case in 
Texas, there will be very few lawsuits once this bill becomes law.
  Rather, under this Patients' Bill of Rights, patients will get the 
care they need and deserve with less delay and less dispute. No longer 
will a cancer patient have to worry about access to clinical trials for 
new treatments. No longer will a family with a sick child have to worry 
about access to a pediatric specialist. No longer will a pregnant woman 
have to worry about switching doctors mid-pregnancy if her doctor is 
dropped from a plan.
  Doctors will be able to prescribe the care they feel is necessary 
without feeling pressured to make cost-efficient decisions. And managed 
care companies will be held responsible when their denials of care 
threaten the lives of patients.
  In sum, under this legislation, our health care system will better 
reflect and respect our values, putting patients first and the power to 
make medical decisions back in the hands of doctors and other health 
care professionals.
  We can all be proud of this outcome and the path we followed to get 
here. The Senate worked through a lot of complicated issues and 
problems, reconciled legitimate policy differences, and reached 
principled compromise where we could. The result is real reform, and a 
bill of rights that is right for America.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support the strong, enforceable Patients' 
Bill of Rights which the Senate is finally going to vote on today. 
After years of consideration, and a hard legislative battle over the 
last few weeks, the bipartisan vote which this bill is about to receive 
on final passage reflects the overwhelming support the bill has from 
the American people.
  The Patients' Bill of Rights assures that medical decisions will be 
made by doctors, nurses and hospitals, not by someone in an insurance 
office somewhere with no personal knowledge of the patient and no 
professional background to make medical judgments. It guarantees access 
to needed health care specialists. It requires continuity of care 
protections so that patients will not have to change doctors in the 
middle of their treatment. And, the bill provides access to a fair, 
unbiased and timely internal and independent external appeals process 
to address denials of needed health care. This legislation will hold 
HMOs accountable for their decisions like everyone else in the United 
States. The Patients' Bill of Rights also assures that doctors and 
patients can openly discuss treatment options and includes an 
enforcement mechanism that ensures these rights are real.
  We have taken a big step forward today on comprehensive managed care 
reform for 190 million Americans. I am hopeful that the House of 
Representatives will again pass a real Patients' Bill of Rights and 
that the President will reconsider his stated intention to veto the 
legislation.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank all my colleagues, both supporters 
and opponents of our legislation, for their patience, their courtesy, 
and their commitment to a full and fair debate on the many difficult 
issues involved in restoring to doctors and HMO patients the right to 
make the critical decisions that will determine the length and quality 
of their lives.
  I think we are all agreed on this one premise, that the care provided 
by HMOs has been inadequate in far too many instances. This failure is 
attributable to the fact that virtually all the authority to make life 
and death decisions has been transferred from the people most capable 
of making medical decisions to those people most capable of making 
business decisions. I do not begrudge a corporation maximizing its 
profits, exercising due diligence regarding its fiduciary 
responsibility to its shareholders. The corporate bottom line is their 
primary responsibility, and I respect that. But that is why, we should 
not grant them another, competing responsibility, especially when that 
secondary responsibility is the life and health of our constituents. I 
know that even the opponents of our legislation are agreed on returning 
more authority to doctors and their patients, and addressing many of 
the most distressing failures of managed health care.
  Where we differ, and differ significantly, is over the questions of 
remedies for negligence on the part of the insurers, and though we have 
tried to find common ground we are not there yet. But the Senate, 
seldom acts in perfect unison, and the majority has spoken in support 
of our legislation. I am grateful for that, for I come to appreciate 
just how important this matter is to the American people, and I am 
proud of the Senate for taking this step in addressing the people's 
just concerns.
  We have made considerable progress in reconciling differences of 
opinion on

[[Page 12483]]

several issues, from employer liability to class action suits to 
establishing a reasonable cap on attorney fees, and exhausting all 
other remedies before going to court. We have addressed small, but 
important issues like protecting from litigation doctors who volunteer 
their time and skill to underprivileged Americans. I want to thank all 
senators involved in reaching those compromises, Senators DeWine, 
Snowe, Lincoln, Thompson, and Nelson especially, for their diligence 
and good faith. I know they want to pass a bill that the President will 
sign, as do I, and they have worked effectively toward that end.
  I know that we have outstanding differences remaining. I know that 
the President is not persuaded that the legislation that we have 
adopted today is the best remedy for the urgent national problem we all 
recognize. I pledge to continue working with the administration and 
with our friends on the other side of the Capitol to see if we might 
yet reach common ground on all the important elements of this 
legislation. I am convinced that we can get there, and I appreciate the 
President's dedication to that same end.
  I thank the sponsors of this legislation, Senator Edwards, the always 
formidable Senator Kennedy, Senators Specter and Chafee, and all the 
other cosponsors for their skill, hard work, and dedication. I thank 
them also for their patience. We are not always on the same side of a 
debate, and I suspect that working at close quarters with me can prove 
challenging even when we are in agreement.
  I thank Senators Frist, Breaux, and Jeffords and all those who 
supported their alternative legislation. Throughout this debate they 
have been motivated by their convictions about what is in the best 
interests of the American people, as have Senator Nickles, the 
Republican manager, Senator Gregg, and all Senators who have disagreed 
with the majority over some provisions in this legislation. I commend 
them all for their principled opposition.
  I am grateful for the leadership of Senators Lott and Daschle, and 
the assistant majority leader, Senator Reid, for their skill, courtesy, 
and fairness in managing this debate.
  Finally, let me thank those who do most of the work around here but 
get the smallest share of the credit for our accomplishments, our 
staffs. I want to thank the minority staff director of the Commerce 
Committee, Mark Buse, committee counsel Jeanne Bumpus, and most 
particularly, my health care legislative assistant, Sonya Sotak for 
their extraordinary hard work, and talented counsel to me and other 
members. I thank the staffs of Senators Edwards, and Kennedy, 
leadership staff for the majority and minority, and all staff who have 
made our work easier and more effective.
  This has been a good, long, open, and interesting debate, 
distinguished by good faith on all sides. It has been a privilege to 
have been part of it. We have achieved an important success today in 
addressing the health care needs of our constituents. We have much work 
to do, and I want to continue working with other Members, our 
colleagues in the other body, and with the President and his associates 
to make sure that we will enact into law these important protections 
for so many Americans who have waited for too long for them. We have 
been negligent in addressing this problem, but today we have taken an 
important step forward in correcting our past mistake. With a little 
more good faith and hard work, we will give the American people reason 
to be as proud of their government as I am proud of the Senate today.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it has been more than 5 years since we 
began this effort to make sure that Americans who have health insurance 
get the medical care they have paid for.
  It has been more than three years since the first bipartisan 
Patients' Bill of Rights was introduced in the House . . . and nearly 2 
years since the last time we debated a real Patients' Bill of Rights in 
the Senate.
  Today--at long last--the Senate is doing what the American people 
want us to do. Today--at long last--we are standing up for America's 
families.
  Today--at long last--we are telling HMOs they are going to have to 
keep their promises and provide their policyholders with the health 
care they've paid for.
  The bill we are about to vote on provides comprehensive protections 
to all Americans in all health plans.
  It is a good bill--and a remarkable example of what we can achieve in 
this Senate when we search together in good faith for a principled, 
workable compromise.
  Over the last 10 days, we have stood together--Republicans and 
Democrats--and rejected amendments that would have made this bill 
unworkable. And we have accepted amendments that made it better.
  Thanks to the hard work of Senators Snowe, DeWine, Lincoln and 
Nelson, we provided additional protections for employers who offer 
health insurance.
  With help from Senators Breaux and Jeffords, we agreed that states 
can continue to use their own standards for patient protection.
  With Senator Bayh and Senator Carper's help, we strengthened the 
external review process to ensure the sanctity of health plan 
contracts.
  At the same time, we turned back an array of destructive amendments 
designed to weaken the protections in this bill.
  We live in an amazing time. Some of the most remarkable advances in 
health care in all of human history are occurring right now. Polio and 
other once-feared childhood diseases have been all but wiped out in our 
lifetimes because of increased immunization rates. We are seeing organ 
transplants, bio-engineered drugs, and promising new therapies for 
repairing human genes.
  But medical advances are useless if your health plan arbitrarily 
refuses to pay for them--or even to let your doctor tell you about 
them.
  This bill guarantees that people who have health insurance can get 
the care their doctors say they need and deserve.
  It ensures that doctors, not insurance companies, make medical 
decisions.
  It guarantees patients the right to hear of all their treatment 
options, not just the cheapest ones.
  It says you have the right to go to the closest emergency room, and 
the right to see a specialist.
  This bill says that women have the right to see an OB/GYN--without 
having to see another doctor first to get permission.
  It guarantees that parents can choose a pediatrician as their child's 
primary care provider.
  It allows families and individuals to challenge an HMO's treatment 
decisions if they disagree with them.
  And, it gives families a way to hold HMO's accountable if their 
decisions cause serious injury or death--because rights without 
remedies are no rights at all.
  This bill achieves every goal we set for it over the past 5 years, 
and we owe that to the stewardship and commitment of Senators McCain, 
Edwards, and Kennedy.
  During these last 10 days, they have shown a seemingly limitless 
ability to find the workable middle ground without sacrificing people's 
basic rights. They have put the Nation's interests ahead of their own 
partisan interests. I thank them for their service to this Senate, and 
to our Nation.
  I also want to thank Senators Nickles and Gregg for being honest with 
us about their disagreements with this bill, and fair in the way they 
handled those disagreements.
  This is the way the Senate should work. A Senate that brings up 
important bills and allows meaningful debate on them is a tribute to us 
all.
  One final reason I found this debate so encouraging is the great 
concern we heard expressed by many opponents of this bill for the 
growing number of Americans who have no health insurance. We agree that 
this is a serious problem, and look forward to working with those 
Senators to address it as soon as possible.
  The effort to pass a Patients' Bill of Rights now returns to the 
House.
  Last year, 68 House Republicans joined Democrats to pass a strong 
patient protection bill very much like

[[Page 12484]]

this one. We urge our colleagues in the House to resist the special 
interests one more time. Together, we can send a strong, enforceable 
Patients' Bill of Rights to President Bush.
  We hope that when that happens, the President will reconsider his 
threatened veto. We hope he will remember the promise he made last fall 
to the American people to pass a national Patients' Bill of Rights.
  Texas has proven that we can protect patients' rights--without 
dramatically increasing premiums. It is time--it is past time--to pass 
a Patients' Bill of Rights to protect all insured Americans.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill, as amended, pass?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. 
Campbell), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), the Senator from 
Texas (Mr. Gramm), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski), the Senator 
from Mississippi (Mr. Lott) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 36, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 220 Leg.]

                                YEAS--59

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--36

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Cochran
     Craig
     Crapo
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Campbell
     Domenici
     Gramm
     Lott
     Murkowski
  The bill (S. 1052), as amended, was passed.
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record).


                           Amendment No. 860

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Kennedy and Senator 
Gregg, the managers of this bill, and me, I send this managers' 
amendment to the desk and ask unanimous consent it be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 860) was agreed to.
  (The text of the amendment is located in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')

                          ____________________