Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I yield 18 minutes to the junior Senator from Arizona. And I would like to reserve the last 10 minutes for myself.

Mr. ALLARD. I yield the Senator an additional 3 minutes.

Mr. ALLARD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. ALLARD. How much time does this side have?

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes and then, following my 5 minutes, yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, the employer is not protected. In fact, he is exposed to more lawsuits--multimillion-dollar lawsuits. In order to protect himself, he is not going to provide health insurance. That means the employees will not be covered. The argument was made, why don't you provide coverage for small employers? Why don't you provide coverage for emergency service? Why don't they provide coverage for medical needs that occur in families and what not? The employer isn't going to provide that coverage if he has to face lawsuits. It is optional. He will decide not to offer health insurance. I was a small businessman and I had to face the challenge of medical costs. We had between 10 and 15 employees. The health care costs were eating us alive. So finally we went to the employees and said what we would like to do is this: We can't afford this, so we will pay you more in a salary and then, hopefully, that will be enough of an increase that you can buy your own health insurance. We could not afford to do that. That was in times that weren't as challenging as they are today. We are seeing horrendous increases in premiums to small business employers. Now we are going to tack on top of that these mandates and increased costs and the increased threat of a lawsuit. It is not hard for me to believe that we are going to have at least a million more workers out there who are not going to be insured if this bill passes. Now, it is 41 percent of the workforce that we are talking about with this amendment. But I look at it a different way. I think we are helping assure that they will have health care coverage with this amendment because we are exempting them from the lawsuits. I think this amendment is a very responsible one. It is needed. If it is not adopted, the small business community of 50 employees or less will suffer. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ALLARD. I ask Senators to join me in supporting the Allard amendment. It is important to the small business community. It is important to health care in this country.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I yield myself the remainder of the time. First of all, I would like to thank my colleagues from Texas and from Missouri for their very cogent comments on small business and the adverse impact of this particular bill on small business. My particular amendment exempts businesses of 50 employees or less. This is important because what we do in this bill is we expose businesses to more lawsuits. The consequences are that businesses will not insure their employees. They will not provide health coverage. The other side is trying to make the point that somehow or the other this amendment will hurt health care coverage for employees. Just the opposite will happen. If this amendment is not adopted and the bill is passed, small employers all over America will cancel their health care coverage and turn to the employee and ask them to provide for their own health care coverage. That is not more health care coverage; that is less health care coverage. I am a small businessman. I have had to face those tough decisions, and it is not hard for me to believe that a million employees will lose health care coverage if this particular bill is passed. I am going to ask my colleagues in this Chamber to vote for this Allard amendment because we want to make sure that we have a viable small business community in America. We want to assure that coverage for employees now covered by health plans of their small business employers continues. If this bill passes, there is a good chance they are going to lose that coverage and that is going to mean less health care coverage for employees, not more. This is a key amendment. It is a key vote for the small business community.

Mr. ALLARD. I think we ought to just take a little time out here and summarize where we are in this debate on whether or not we exempt businesses of 50 employees or fewer. And this is the way I want to lay it out. The Democrats are arguing that 41 percent of small business employees will lack protection from HMOs. That argument is wrong. Forty-one percent of small business employees will be subject to increased health care premiums or even losing their health maintenance insurance altogether. They will not be insured. So this argument that there is a line being drawn between 48 and 51 employees, the fact is, when you expose small employers and small businesses to increased lawsuits when they take on a program, they are not going to take on the program. So employees will not be insured. Moreover, an employee does not get protection from HMOs from suing their employer. If they need to sue, they should sue their HMO, not the employer, who happens to be, by the way, kind enough to offer the health insurance. Under S. 1052, employee health costs will increase $1.19 per month. Again, I believe this argument is irrelevant, and because of S. 1052 we will see, in my view, more than 1 million Americans will lose their health insurance. At least the Senate can do something to help out small employers by exempting them from these unnecessary lawsuits. I am talking about businesses with less than 50 employees. S. 1052 will allow a small business of five employees, for example, to be sued for unlimited economic, unlimited noneconomic damages, and up to $5 million in punitive damages. Now, that is not protecting the small businessman. That is not protecting those businesses that have 50 or fewer employees. According to a recent survey of 600 national employers, 46 percent of the employers would be likely to drop health insurance coverage for their workers if they are exposed to new health care lawsuits, plain and simple. I will ask to print in the Record a Denver Post editorial from June 21, 2001. I will quote a small section of it. It says: The competing Democrat bill, in our view, goes too far and includes a provision that will allow employees to sue their employers for denial of a medical request if the employer helped make the decision. We think this type of language would have the effect of encouraging more lawsuits and driving up costs instead of encouraging quick, early resolution of disputes. It went on to say: We also find fault with the provisions that would authorize individual lawsuits to produce punitive damage awards in the multimillion-dollar range. Compensatory damages are one thing; punitive damage awards are quite another. I ask unanimous consent that this editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALLARD. I reserve my time until the majority has used their time on the amendment.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, has time expired on the other side?

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I am offering an amendment to S. 1052 that would prevent frivolous, unnecessary, and unwarranted lawsuits against small employers. That is what my amendment is all about. It exempts small employers that have 50 or fewer employees in their firm. I think this is an important provision. I plan on sharing with my colleagues in this Senate Chamber some of my experiences as a small businessman. I have had the experience of having to start my business from scratch. I worked with fewer than 50 employees. Believe me, from personal experience, I know what happens when you are a small employer and you have too many mandates on your business and you do not have all the staff and accountants and lawyers in your firm to help you along, and you have to go to an attorney or accountant outside your business. I know the impact it can have as far as cost is concerned. Believe you me, I know what it feels like to have taxes increased on you as a small businessman because you are in the dollar game; every dollar makes a difference on what your bottom line is going to be. Contrary to what many Members of the Senate are trying to argue, S. 1052 does not exempt small employers from lawsuits. Under S. 1052, employees could sue their employers when an employer--and I quote-- ``fails to exercise ordinary care in making a decision.'' That is from page 140 of the bill. Mr. President, 72 percent of small employers in the United States provide health care that Americans need. They do not have to provide that coverage, but they choose to on their own. The Senate should honor that. The Senate should respect that. S. 1052, however, undermines that. Allowing small employers to be liable for health care decisions would unduly burden a small employer. It would force them to drop health insurance coverage for millions of America's small business employees. At the very least, it adds a new burden to the businessperson who already spends too much time dealing with Government mandates and paperwork. Without our amendment, S. 1052 places medical treatment decisions in the hands of lawyers and judges and will trigger a plethora of lawsuits against small employers, in my view, creating a field day for trial lawyers. The Senate should not support legislation that allows unwarranted lawsuits that hurt small employers. This year, employers are trying to cope with a 12-percent increase in health care costs that employers experienced last year. Now, as we move forward into another year, they are looking at somewhere around a 13- percent increase. I have a recent survey that was jointly put together with the consulting firm Deloitte & Touche and the industry of business and health that reveals that health premiums increased more than 12 percent last year and are expected to increase 13 percent in both 2001 and 2002. So this is a burden with which small employers are faced. With the passage of this bill, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated it would increase premiums another 4 percent. That would have a very adverse impact on small employers. We have heard it is likely we will have an additional 1 million who are uninsured with the passage of this Patients' Bill of Rights. I suggest to the Members of the Senate, a large part of that million is going to come from the very small employers, those with 50 employees or fewer. S. 1052, as it is currently written, would cause further increases in health care costs for American families, workers, and businesses across the board. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the previous version of S. 1052, which is substantially identical to the current bill under consideration, would increase the Nation's health care costs, as I mentioned earlier, by more than 4 percent. This is above and beyond the additional 13-percent increase in health care costs employers will face this year. Moreover, this year's increase would be the seventh annual increase in a row. If S. 1052 passes, many small employers will stop providing health care for their employees and the number of uninsured Americans will increase. The country cannot afford this. The small businesses of America cannot afford this. The country cannot afford S. 1052 in its current form. I personally know the costs of providing health care to employees. As I mentioned earlier, for 20 years I practiced veterinarian medicine and provided health care insurance to my employees. I can speak from personal experience: Providing health care was costly. If I were still practicing veterinarian medicine as a private employer, I could not begin to imagine the burden S. 1052 would place on me, my employees, and everybody's families involved in that business. I believe we should pass a Patients' Bill of Rights, not a lawyers' right to sue. Our bill should focus on expanding access to affordable health care for the Nation's 43 million uninsured, not on taking steps that will cause more Americans to lose their health insurance and further burden small business. I also bring up the point that in this particular piece of legislation there are four exemptions. There is an exemption for physicians, an exemption for hospitals, an exemption for a recordkeeping function in health care, as well as an exemption for some insurance providers. The point I make is that if you are beginning to provide an exception for certain businesses, then why not provide that exception for those people who are going to be most adversely impacted by this particular piece of legislation? Those 1 million or so that will be uninsured are going to come out of that small business sector because small employers will have to make the tough decision as to whether they can afford it or not, and many of them are going to say: We can't afford it, so we are going to have to make some adjustments. One of the major adjustments because of the threat of a lawsuit--and I point out to the Presiding Officer that not only is it the lawsuit itself when you happen to get a judgment against you that is such a problem; it is the threat of a lawsuit because your margin of profit is so narrow that you cannot afford to pay for the professional help, the attorneys to defend you. So small employers will make the decision not to provide health care insurance. My amendment to S. 1052 would exclude small business employers from being the victims of frivolous lawsuits. I urge my colleagues to consider the consequences of the small employer liability provisions in S. 1052 and to support this amendment. I think at a time when our economy in this country is struggling, and at a time when I think everybody in this Chamber understands how important it is to have a vital small employer sector--it is the small employers that have come up with new ideas; it is the small employers that are the backbone of economic growth in many of our small communities, particularly in rural areas; it is the small employers that so many of us look to, to be the leaders in our communities--I hope there remains a sensitivity to what the small employer contributes in the way of competition, in the way of developing new ideas, and in the way of making sure we have stronger family-oriented communities. It is a pool of leadership that not only strengthens our communities and our States and our Nation, but it is something around which our whole economy evolves because the importance of competition, and using the dollar and the marketplace to allow the consumer to predict the best services is an important concept in this country. I don't want to see us lose that by moving constantly towards larger businesses and a corporate-type of society. There is no doubt that small business is important to this country. I hope Members of the Senate will join me in making sure the small employer, those with 50 employees or less, is exempted from the liability provisions in S. 1052. I ask for their support of this amendment.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I want to respond to some of the comments that were just made. The fact remains if you survey employers, half say they will drop employee coverage if exposed to lawsuits. I can understand that having been a small businessman, and I understand how one tries to deal with the bottom line of that business, usually a very marginal business. Again, I agree with the Senator from Massachusetts when he says we are talking about 40 to 45 percent of the workforce in this country. It points out how important that small business sector is. Those were 50 employees or less. They are a vital part of our economy. We want to make sure they have an ability to attract employees into their business. We want to make sure they can meet the bottom line. We want to make sure they stay in business. I want to share a quote with the Members of the Senate made by William Spencer, who is with the Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. We all know many times builders and contractors are small businesspeople, sometimes, at least in my State, frequently 4 and 5-man operations, rarely over 10, particularly in the subcontracting area: Many of the ABC's member companies are small businesses, and thus the prospect of facing a $5 million liability cap on civil assessments is daunting. Financial reality is that if faced with such a large claim, many of our members could be forced to drop employee health insurance coverage rather than face the potential liability or possibly even shut their business down. I think he is right on, and I agree with him. The question is, how do you respond as a small employer when you are faced with an untenable exposure from a lawsuit or costs or regulatory burden? You try to figure out a way you can move out of that liability you are facing. What I did, and I think many small employers will do, is go back to their employees and say: Look, there is no way we can cover your medical insurance. There is no way we can work with a program, whether it is an HMO or whatever, to provide you with medical insurance. If you are a small employer such as I was--I had part-time employees working for me. Many who came to work for me had never held a job in their life. They were just out of high school, in many instances, and going to college. I was going to give them their first experience in the workplace. I had to make a decision as to what we were going to do in a case where I had increasing costs in my small business. Many of them were as a result of insurance premiums. I decided that I was going to approach my employees and say: I would much rather pay you extra to work in my business and leave it up to you to line up your own health care coverage. Again, they were part-time employees who we expected, in many cases, to work for us for 3 months, sometimes 2, 3 years, and then they would be moving on. By taking this approach, I also gave them portability. In other words, when they left my business, they were not faced with the issue of what is going to happen with my insurance when I get to a new employer; what is going to happen, from the employee's perspective; what am I going to do when I am no longer working for my current employer as far as health coverage is concerned. That is how I decided to handle it. I think most small employers will view it the same way I did. When they see that untenable exposure, they are going to decide not to have coverage for their employees. In order to stay competitive, they might decide to pay them more or some other way to compensate them for that loss in health care coverage. The fact remains, from my own personal experience, it is not hard for me to believe that many small employers, as many as half, will elect not to provide health care coverage for their employees. We need to do everything we can to encourage the small business sector to survive. This is not the only place where we draw a bright line, where we recognize how important the small business sector is to us. In other places in the law, we have tried to define what a small business is. In some cases, we drew it at 150 employees or less; in some cases, 100 employees or less; or maybe, in some cases, 50 employees or less. In fact, in some cases, they even tried to define the very small employer of 15 employees or less. It is not an unusual policy for the Senate in legislation to draw a bright line to define what a small employer would be. In this particular instance, it is entirely appropriate to make that at 50 employees or less, and if you have 50 employees or less, you would be exempted from the provisions of the Senate bill that is before us. Small businesses are important for the economic growth of this country. Small businesses are important to generate new ideas. When an American has a great idea, many times they go into business for themselves, and they try to market that idea. If it works, it may eventually grow into a large business. If it does not work, they may eventually end up having to work for another employer. But many times they are contributors to their communities. They are contributors to the employee base. They are contributors to the leadership within that community and help make that community a better place in which to live. I believe we need to be sensitive to what small employers can contribute to our economy and the vital role they play. I believe this mandate, this bill will make it much more difficult to stay in business, and, consequently we will begin to lose that pool of talent that is so vital to the health of this country.

Mr. ALLARD. Is the Senator from Nevada yielding back his time?

Mr. ALLARD. I will yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. ALLARD. That is my understanding, there will be an hour.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 817.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, 226 years ago, the Continental Army was formed with the goal of ending tyranny and winning our freedom. Since the end of the Revolution, American soldiers, imbued with the spirit of the original patriots, have pledged their allegiance to our nation through their sacrifices in uniform. All of our Army units, Active, Guard, and Reserve share the heritage of the Continental Army and their soldiers represent the finest men and women our Nation has to offer. Thousands of soldiers stand guard around the globe ensuring our freedom and doing the tough jobs that maintain our American way of life. The proud tradition of the Army, dating back to 1775, has always stood tall. They are steeped in tradition, but ever flexible and capable of responding to a dynamic world. Now, the Army is transforming to meet the new demands of the 21st century. This new force will ensure that our national Command Authorities continue to have the ability to quickly and efficiently deploy land forces throughout the world. Both in times of peace, and times of war, throughout more than two centuries, the soldiers of the Army have been poised and ready to answer the call of duty to defend this great Nation. The Army remains the best fighting force in the world: unchallenged and unparalleled. They are respected by their allies, feared by their opponents, and esteemed by the American people. Today, June 14, 2001, as the U.S. Army celebrates their 226th birthday, I ask that we reflect on the great legacy the Army has given this Nation and recognize our pride in our American soldiers' courage, dedication to duty, and selfless service to the Nation.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 minutes to speak in morning business.

Mr. ALLARD. No, I just need 2 minutes now. I thought I might be encroaching on time set aside for the Democrats.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the Colorado Avalanche for bringing the Stanley Cup back to Colorado. With a 3-1 victory in game 7 of the Stanley Cup Finals on Saturday night over the defending world champion New Jersey Devils, the Colorado Avalanche are champions once again. The Avalanche won their first cup in 1996 after arriving in Denver from Quebec. The tough game seven victory capped an incredible season for the Avalanche. They won the President's Trophy which is awarded to the team with the most points at the end of the regular season. Captain Joe Sakic lead the way by having an MVP type season with 118 points and 54 goals. He scored another 13 goals in the playoffs to lead everyone in that catagory. With 52 wins in the regular season and securing home ice throughout the playoffs, the Avalanche started their long march towards the cup. After a first-round sweep of the Vancouver Canucks, the Avs faced the Los Angeles Kings which proved to be their toughest task aside from the finals. It took a 5-1 victory in game 7 of the Western Conference semi- finals to get to the Conference finals against the St. Louis Blues. With the scare of losing to Los Angeles behind them, the Avalanche came together in the Conference Finals and rolled over the St. Louis Blues in five games. The next hurdle would prove to be their toughest. The Colorado Avalanche had to face the defending champion New Jersey Devils to whom they had lost twice in the regular season. Head Coach Bob Hartley had his Avalanche hitting on all cylinders in the first game of the Stanley Cup Finals and defeated the Devils 5-0. That would prove to be the only easy win in the entire series. The defending champion Devils defended their title well and the series was back and fourth the rest of the way until the game 7 win two weeks later. With Conn Smythe trophy winner Patrick Roy leading the way the Avs have brought the Stanley Cup back to the Rocky Mountains. Roy, who won the Conn Smythe trophy, which is awarded to the most valuable player in the playoffs, is no stranger to awards. Roy won his first playoff MVP award 15 years ago, for the Montreal Canadiens. He became the first three-time winner of the award, and holds not only the all-time regular-season wins record, but his 212 playoff wins are tops as well. The great play of Roy and Sakic should not overshadow the play of the rest of the team, players like Alex Tanguay who scored the game winning goal on Saturday and Chris Drury who had the game winner of game 6 in New Jersey. Milan Hejduk had a great year and had 23 points in the playoffs, second only to Sakic. Rob Blake and Adam Foote did a tremendous job during the Avs quest for the cup as well. Up and down the roster for the Avalanche from Stephan Yelle to Eric Messier contributions were evident. The team really came together when superstar Peter Forsberg had emergency surgery to remove a ruptured spleen after the game 7 victory over the Los Angeles Kings. Forsberg, who is considered by many to be the best all around player in the National Hockey League, had 14 points in 11 games before being sidelined for the Conference Finals and the Stanley Cup Finals. With Forsberg out, the team really stuck together and put forth quite an effort. The effort displayed on the ice was most evident by one player who waited 22 years to win a Stanley Cup. Ray Bourque came to Colorado last year after playing his entire 20 year career in Boston for the Bruins in hopes of winning his first Stanley Cup. The 40 year old is one of the best defenseman to ever lace up the skates and he has a spot waiting for him in the Hall of Fame. The only thing eluding him during his illustrious career was Lord Stanley's Cup. Saturday night, I along with the rest of the country saw what pure joy feels like when number 77 hoisted the Cup above his head. After 1,826 games Ray Bourque can finally call himself a World Champion. I congratulate Ray Bourque and the entire World Champion Colorado Avalanche organization on a sensational year.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, the Colorado Springs, Colorado metropolitan area is the home of the United States Air Force Academy, the North American Aerospace Defense Command, United States Space Command, Ft. Carson Army Base, Peterson Air Force Base, and Shriever Air Force Base. There are over 30,000 active duty and reserve military personnel in the city. There are nearly 23,000 retired personnel in the 5th Congressional District, which is based around Colorado Springs, the third largest DoD retired community in any Congressional District in the country. There is, however, no National Military Cemetery. The bill I am introducing today is a companion piece to legislation introduced in the House by my friend and colleague, Joel Hefley. At my annual town meeting in El Paso County on June 1, I discussed this matter with my constituents. There are many of them who feel strongly that a cemetery is needed and I agree. This bill will allow the thousands of eligible Colorado Springs military personnel, both active duty and retired, to have a chance to find their final resting place in the city so many of them love. I am aware that the Veterans Administration is not known for prompt and easy cemetery construction. I am aware that there are some areas of the country deemed to have cemetery needs more critical than Colorado Springs. But I do not think that should mean that the people of Colorado Springs are denied the ability to chose a cemetery for themselves and their loved ones that properly honors their contributions to the nation. I look forward to working on this bill and seeing its eventual passage.