Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Edwards for using a hypothetical example of why this is a very cruel amendment which I hope will be voted down overwhelmingly. But I have a real case I can talk about in a moment. This morning--it seemed like a very long time ago, and it was--I voted for an amendment by Senator Santorum to protect infants, to say that infants who are born should have the protections of this bill. I said to him: I certainly agree that infants, children, and teenagers all the way up to the elderly, the most frail, should be covered by this bill. What does my friend now suggest? A 75-percent tax on pain and suffering to go to the Federal Government for a Government program. This is unbelievable to me. A 75-percent tax on families who may be suffering because a child is permanently disabled, made blind, paralyzed, forever in a wheelchair, and then having to pay 75 percent of a punitive damage award that could go to help ease the pain of that child, that could hire people to take care of that child. This is a cruel amendment. My friend always says he is for the children. This is not for the children. This is not for the families. This is not for the patients. This amendment will take the funds away from those families who are in desperate need of money to build a life for someone deeply harmed by an HMO that had no conscience. As my friend says, punitive damages are not gotten lightly. It has to be proven that you were willful, that you were vicious in your intent. And then to say to that family: No, you have to give up 75 percent of that fund that you won because you were a victim. It is a victim's tax. It is a victim's tax that goes to a Federal fund, to a Government program. I always thought my friends on the other side trusted local people, a jury of our peers. They say: A local judge, someone from the community who can look at that family and understand what it means when they have a child permanently disabled. A family with a little child in a wheelchair was coming to my office several years ago. The child was hooked up to every conceivable tube imaginable. The child was blind. There were caps on those punitive damages. And there was not enough money to hire the people that family needed to give their child the most decent life possible. Now on top of this, as I understand this amendment, even in cases where there is a cap on punitive damages, this amendment still takes away 75 percent of the punitive damage. That is a slap at that victim, that child, the parents, the very children my friend said he cared about just 7 hours ago. This is an amendment that says the Federal Government is more important than your family. The Federal Government will reach into a local jury; the Federal Government will take 75 percent of your award, of your punitive damages award, and put it into a Government fund. This is a terrible amendment. I hope it will be defeated. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask the Senator to yield me 5 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, it is nice to see you in the Chair. I say to my friend from Pennsylvania, our side has no disagreement with this whatsoever. Of course, we believe everyone born should deserve the protections of this bill. The Senator, in his amendment, mentions infants who are born and that they deserve the protections of this bill. Of course they deserve the protections of this bill. Who could be more vulnerable than a newborn baby? So, of course, we agree with that. But we go further. We believe everyone deserves the protection of this bill: babies, infants, children, families, all the way up until you are fighting for your life because you may have a dreaded disease; you may be elderly. Everyone deserves the HMOs to act in the right way and to put your vital signs ahead of their dollar signs. That is key. Maybe in the spirit of our Chaplain who called for unity this morning we start off this morning together, saying everyone who is born deserves the protections of this bill. We all know that, regardless of what age, we have heard stories of patients who are really disregarded in the name of the bottom line. During times when we see CEOs in these HMOs drawing down hundreds of millions of dollars, we see little children and elderly people and those in between denied the needed care, denied the kinds of prescriptions they need. We join with an ``aye'' vote on this. I hope it will, in fact, be unanimous. I also hope the underlying bill will get a very strong vote and we will say that all of our people deserve protection, from the very tiniest infant to the most elderly among us. I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Mrs. BOXER. I say to my friend, then that is the same comment we can make to our colleagues who are trying to put this on a Patients' Bill of Rights. The R&D tax credit is in effect until 2004. Let's get an appropriate vehicle where we can all walk together and support the R&D tax credit and not put it on the Patients' Bill of Rights. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mrs. BOXER. Will my colleague yield to me for a question?

Mrs. BOXER. I want to ask the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee this question. As someone who comes from the largest State in the Union, on the cutting edge of high tech, making the R&D--or R&E sometimes called--tax credit permanent has been a priority of mine for a long time. Will my friend tell me, if this is such an important priority to those who, in fact, had the majority at the time the tax bill was written, namely, the Republicans, and the President certainly was working at that time with Senator Grassley, could they not have put the extension of the R&D tax credit into the big tax bill that was brought to this Chamber?

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation to help the estimated 1.5 million veterans who are now living in poverty by giving a tax credit to those employers who hire them and put them on the road to financial independence. This idea was proposed and is supported by the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans and the Non-Commissioned Officers Association. This legislation is based upon the current tax credit offered for employers who hire those coming off welfare. Veterans groups tell me that the current tax credit is underutilized by veterans because many are not receiving food stamps or are not on welfare. Because the bill I am introducing today bases eligibility on the poverty level, more veterans will be able to benefit from this credit. My bill would allow employers to receive a hiring tax credit of 50 percent of the veteran's first year wages and a retention credit of 25 percent of the veteran's second year wages. Only the first $20,000 of wages per year will count toward the credit. I offered this legislation as an amendment to the tax bill. While my amendment failed on a procedural vote, 49-50, opponents indicated that enacting this legislation would be a good thing to do. This being the case, I am hopeful that the Senate will take up and pass the bill I am introducing today in a bipartisan manner. It is the least we can do for our veterans who so bravely served our Nation and deserve our help. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, I would ask for 1 minute as well upon the conclusion of the Senator's remarks.

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mrs. BOXER. On my time. I would ask a question on my time.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, my colleague, in his discussion of this amendment, does attack the landmark case of Roe v. Wade which simply said, in the 1970s--and women have had the right since then--that in the early stages of a pregnancy, the government should play no role in the very personal, private, moral decision that a woman and her family and her doctor and her God would make without the interference of government. But his amendment certainly does not attack Roe in any way. His amendment makes it very clear that nothing in this amendment gives any rights that are not yet afforded to a fetus. Therefore, I, as being a pro-choice Senator on this side, representing my colleagues here, have no problem whatsoever with this amendment. I feel good about that. I feel good that we can, in fact, vote for this together. It is very rare that we can. Simply put, this amendment says it all in its purpose: ``To protect infants who are born alive.'' Of course, of course. My colleague goes on to say that simple statement, which is very important, is in fact, he said, the heart of this bill. I think the heart of this bill is even more than that. The heart of this bill is, yes, protecting infants; it is also protecting children, protecting teenagers, protecting people as they get older, until they are very old and very frail and are fighting for their life. So this bill really should protect us all at every stage of our life, from the earliest days until the final days. I hope that my colleague will join with us in supporting this Patients' Bill of Rights because it does, in fact, protect all of us. And it will, in fact, give all of us at any stage, at any age, the quality health care that we need. I can tell my friend, and I think I have mentioned it to him before and on the floor before, that I gave birth to two premature babies, one quite premature. And I can say right here and now that I will never, ever forget the experience of those doctors. This was a long time ago, I say to my friend; this was way back. Now my kids are taking care of me. And the doctor came in and grabbed my firstborn son and, before they could even take a cloth to clean him, ran him into the incubator where he had to stay for 1 month. Had I not had that kind of dedication from a pediatrician, that kind of concern, a hospital that knew at that time we didn't have the money to pay the $1,000 a day that it costs-- now it is way more than that--I don't know if today I would have a beautiful healthy son who is married and the pride of our lives. My daughter was also born premature, a similar circumstance, same thing:--dedicated people, dedicated hospital, quality care. I join in voting for this amendment, with the understanding that all of us at every stage of our life deserve that kind of quality care. In other words, if my friend were to expand it and say every human being deserves quality health care, deserves, when they are in the hospital, to be protected, I would join with him as well. That is what I think the larger bill does do. He believes it is necessary to single out infants. Fine. That is fine. Again, I say to my friend in the chair that we will be voting for this amendment, I hope unanimously. If we have to have a recorded vote, that is fine. And we will state that we feel very strongly that every person deserves protection from this health care system and that this Patients' Bill of Rights should give us all the care that we deserve and all the care our families deserve, regardless of whether we are a helpless newborn baby or whether we are an elderly person who is fighting and struggling against illness. If 100 people vote for this amendment, which I think will be the case, then 100 people should vote for the Patients' Bill of Rights because it will afford the families of those vulnerable infants and all of us the protections that we need against HMOs that oftentimes put dollar signs ahead of our vital signs. That is wrong to do. Some of these babies are born into families who don't have a lot of money, who don't have a lot of power, who are going against HMOs where the CEO makes hundreds of millions of dollars. But they say: Gee, we are not going to give that little baby the care he needs. I had a case I talked about on the floor where a child was denied a medicine. She was 3 years old and had cancer. It was $54 for the medicine and the HMO denied that medicine. That child suffered so with nausea and all the rest, while the head of that HMO, because of a huge merger--and I asked my staff to check this because I could hardly believe it--made $800 million in the course of that merger. But they denied a drug to a little baby suffering from cancer--$54. I heard my colleagues on the other side--some of them against this bill-- say: We can't legislate by anecdote. Well, I have to tell you, when you hear one story, and then another and another, from people you never heard of, and you hold hearings and the people come out and tell the stories, then we know there is a need to pass this Patients' Bill of Rights. So I would vote for this to protect the infants, and then I will vote to protect everyone in this country because everyone deserves protection from HMOs who put their bottom line ahead of people's health.

Mrs. BOXER. The Born Alive Equal Protection----

Mrs. BOXER. I ask my friend to repeat the Santorum amendment.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, last week the Bush Administration eliminated the only nonstop air service between Los Angeles International Airport, LAX, and National Airport, DCA, in Washington, DC. The elimination of the flight makes Los Angeles the largest U.S. city without nonstop air service to this vital airport in the Nation's capital. Since the DCA to lax flight began 10 months ago, 45,000 passengers have taken the flight. Not only is it popular, but many small and mid- sized communities throughout the state, including Bakersfield, Fresno, Monterey, and San Luis Obispo, rely on this flight. They have connecting flights into LAX specifically designed so that passengers can take the LAX-DCA nonstop flight. These communities will suffer because of this decision. This happened because TWA, which operated the flight, went bankrupt. Even though American Airlines purchased the assets of TWA and was willing to continue the flight, the Administration gave the LAX slot at National Airport to another city. This was an unfortunate decision, and one that was both unnecessary and unjustified. Therefore, today, I am introducing legislation to reinstate the service. It is narrowly crafted to address the unique situation we have here. My bill only applies in cases where a community loses service to DCA because the airline operating the flight went bankrupt. In those cases, the air carrier that purchases the assets of the bankrupt airlines has a right to continue the nonstop service. In exchange, however, the air carrier must give up one of its several slots that it uses to fly to its hub airport. In this way, my bill would not create any additional flights to National Airport. Nor would it take away any of the long-distance nonstop flights now in operation, including to the city that just received the slot originally granted to Los Angeles. But, it would allow the very popular nonstop air service between LAX and DCA to continue. It seems to me that this is a fair compromise to ensure that service between National Airport and Los Angeles continues. I look forward to working with my colleagues to address this problem before the end of the summer.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this week, as the United Nations meets to prepare a global strategy to combat the growing worldwide HIV-AIDS crisis, I am proud to introduce legislation aimed at ensuring that the United States continues to be a leader in the fight against this deadly disease. I am pleased to once again join my good friend and colleague from Oregon, Senator Smith, in introducing this bill. Last year, we teamed up to offer the Global AIDS Prevention Act that doubled funding for the United States Agency for International Development's HIV-AIDS programs. Not only was this legislation included in broader international health legislation which became law, it was also fully funded for the current fiscal year. This year, we are looking to build upon last year's success by again doubling the amount USAID spends on fighting the global HIV-AIDS epidemic. The Global AIDS Research and Relief Act would authorize $600 million in each of the next two fiscal years. It is designed to complement international HIV-AIDS relief efforts so that a truly global response can be implemented in sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, Southeast Asia, Russia, and all places where people are suffering from this epidemic. In the 20 years since AIDS was first recognized, 22 million people worldwide have died from the disease, and 36 million more are living with HIV or AIDS today. Of those living with the disease, 95 percent live in the developing world where advanced technology to combat AIDS is not readily available. It is predicted that AIDS will soon become the deadliest infectious epidemic in world history, surpassing the Plague, which killed an estimated 25 million people. This new chapter in the AIDS epidemic is especially tragic because its growth is preventable. While there is no cure for this horrible disease, progress is being made. New medical breakthroughs afford HIV- positive people a much greater life expectancy than they would have had ten years ago. Unfortunately, these efforts are not reaching the Nations whose people need help the most. By increasing authorization for USAID to establish and expand these valuable initiatives in developing countries, our bill helps to remedy this disparity in the quality of care. Specifically, the bill addresses the need for increased voluntary testing and counseling, so that we can educate people and keep its spread in check. With this funding authorization, the USAID will be able to provide more for the most vulnerable constituencies, children and young adults. The money will be used for drugs like neviropine, which is given to expectant HIV-positive mothers to prevent the spread of the infection to their unborn children. The United States is a trendsetter in efforts to address the pandemic of HIV-AIDS. Through the work of USAID, we have instituted prevention, care, and treatment programs in some of the hardest-hit countries in sub-Saharan Africa. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has worked with partners in other countries to expand treatment programs. Other agencies such as the Department of Labor, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Defense are contributing to the effort to end the spread of AIDS. But far more remains to be done. I urge my colleagues to support this measure and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, last week the Bush Administration eliminated the only nonstop air service between Los Angeles International Airport, LAX, and National Airport, DCA, in Washington, DC. The elimination of the flight makes Los Angeles the largest U.S. city without nonstop air service to this vital airport in the Nation's capital. Since the DCA to lax flight began 10 months ago, 45,000 passengers have taken the flight. Not only is it popular, but many small and mid- sized communities throughout the state, including Bakersfield, Fresno, Monterey, and San Luis Obispo, rely on this flight. They have connecting flights into LAX specifically designed so that passengers can take the LAX-DCA nonstop flight. These communities will suffer because of this decision. This happened because TWA, which operated the flight, went bankrupt. Even though American Airlines purchased the assets of TWA and was willing to continue the flight, the Administration gave the LAX slot at National Airport to another city. This was an unfortunate decision, and one that was both unnecessary and unjustified. Therefore, today, I am introducing legislation to reinstate the service. It is narrowly crafted to address the unique situation we have here. My bill only applies in cases where a community loses service to DCA because the airline operating the flight went bankrupt. In those cases, the air carrier that purchases the assets of the bankrupt airlines has a right to continue the nonstop service. In exchange, however, the air carrier must give up one of its several slots that it uses to fly to its hub airport. In this way, my bill would not create any additional flights to National Airport. Nor would it take away any of the long-distance nonstop flights now in operation, including to the city that just received the slot originally granted to Los Angeles. But, it would allow the very popular nonstop air service between LAX and DCA to continue. It seems to me that this is a fair compromise to ensure that service between National Airport and Los Angeles continues. I look forward to working with my colleagues to address this problem before the end of the summer.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this week, as the United Nations meets to prepare a global strategy to combat the growing worldwide HIV-AIDS crisis, I am proud to introduce legislation aimed at ensuring that the United States continues to be a leader in the fight against this deadly disease. I am pleased to once again join my good friend and colleague from Oregon, Senator Smith, in introducing this bill. Last year, we teamed up to offer the Global AIDS Prevention Act that doubled funding for the United States Agency for International Development's HIV-AIDS programs. Not only was this legislation included in broader international health legislation which became law, it was also fully funded for the current fiscal year. This year, we are looking to build upon last year's success by again doubling the amount USAID spends on fighting the global HIV-AIDS epidemic. The Global AIDS Research and Relief Act would authorize $600 million in each of the next two fiscal years. It is designed to complement international HIV-AIDS relief efforts so that a truly global response can be implemented in sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, Southeast Asia, Russia, and all places where people are suffering from this epidemic. In the 20 years since AIDS was first recognized, 22 million people worldwide have died from the disease, and 36 million more are living with HIV or AIDS today. Of those living with the disease, 95 percent live in the developing world where advanced technology to combat AIDS is not readily available. It is predicted that AIDS will soon become the deadliest infectious epidemic in world history, surpassing the Plague, which killed an estimated 25 million people. This new chapter in the AIDS epidemic is especially tragic because its growth is preventable. While there is no cure for this horrible disease, progress is being made. New medical breakthroughs afford HIV- positive people a much greater life expectancy than they would have had ten years ago. Unfortunately, these efforts are not reaching the Nations whose people need help the most. By increasing authorization for USAID to establish and expand these valuable initiatives in developing countries, our bill helps to remedy this disparity in the quality of care. Specifically, the bill addresses the need for increased voluntary testing and counseling, so that we can educate people and keep its spread in check. With this funding authorization, the USAID will be able to provide more for the most vulnerable constituencies, children and young adults. The money will be used for drugs like neviropine, which is given to expectant HIV-positive mothers to prevent the spread of the infection to their unborn children. The United States is a trendsetter in efforts to address the pandemic of HIV-AIDS. Through the work of USAID, we have instituted prevention, care, and treatment programs in some of the hardest-hit countries in sub-Saharan Africa. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has worked with partners in other countries to expand treatment programs. Other agencies such as the Department of Labor, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Defense are contributing to the effort to end the spread of AIDS. But far more remains to be done. I urge my colleagues to support this measure and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I will yield then in 1 minute, if I might, and leave the floor at that time. But I want to sum up. On Monday morning early I held a hearing in San Francisco. I had patients and families of patients testify. I had doctors testify. I heard stories that absolutely brought tears to my eyes--not just to my eyes but to those of everyone in that room. No. 1, a husband whose wife was diagnosed with breast cancer had to literally put his work aside. He is in his 50s. He had to fight for her to get the treatment she deserves and needs because the HMO was trying so hard to save money. He had to threaten to go to the Los Angeles Times and tell his story--threaten--in order to get the care she needs. I had the mother of a little girl who was diagnosed with cancer in her eyes. She had to struggle and fight. She said: I gave up everything else I was doing. I could not be with my daughter. This is wrong. Senators can offer amendments until the cows come home and I know one thing: It is delaying passage of this bill. It is delaying the chance to vote on a strong Patients' Bill of Rights. Bring your amendments on. We are voting them down, most of them. If some of them are good, we will support them. But we want a strong Patients' Bill of Rights that says to our people: You are paying for this care. You deserve this care. If you are turned down for care, you deserve the right to a speedy appeal, and then for sure we want to hold the HMOs accountable if they hurt you or your family. We say: Treat them as we would anyone else in society. I am grateful for the honor to speak on behalf of the underlying bill. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. I will respond to the plea from my friend from Texas, his plea that we finish this bill. No one wants to finish this bill more than the authors of the bill, Senators McCain, Kennedy, and Edwards. They have been working to compromise; they have been working with Republicans. That is the reason we are winning these votes on amendments, because we are getting Republican and Democratic votes and carrying the majority. We also want to finish this bill and do things the right way. Why do folks stand up and talk about issues that are already taken care of in this bill? I know there is a disagreement on the fine print. That is what the frustration level is. I hope my friend will work with Senator Snowe as she seeks to craft a bipartisan amendment dealing with the employer liability. Right now, as I read the bill, employers do not have liability; they cannot be sued unless they personally make the decision to withhold care from the patient. Most employers do not do that. They contract with providers, and those providers will be held responsible. I find it very interesting that my friends on the other side of the aisle--most of them, certainly not all of them; and we are happy to have Senator McCain and other Senators joining with us on many of these amendments--I find it intriguing that they keep talking about these poor HMOs and insurance companies. We know, and we have said it a number of times, all we want is to see HMOs treated the same way in our society as we treat every other business, every other individual. If any of us goes outside this Chamber and we knock into someone and we hurt them, we are responsible. We are held accountable if it was our fault. The reason we have the safest products in the world is that we have the toughest liability laws and they act as prevention. People make safe products, one, because most of them in their hearts want a good, safe product. But we have harsh laws if you intentionally hurt someone. If the brakes on the car don't work, if the crib bars are too wide, wide enough so a child can be strangled, we have laws on the books. All we are saying to HMOs is, if you in fact hurt people, you should be held accountable as well. Members can stand up and pick apart one sentence in the bill, but the fact is this debate goes much deeper. It is not about paragraph 1 on page 2; it is about the essence of what we are trying to do. Do patients deserve care that is prescribed by their physician or should they be at the mercy of some accountant wearing a green eyeshade saying, no, that is money we cannot spend because our CEO will not make his $200 million this year. Patients deserve to have their care prescribed by physicians. Certainly, physicians are making that statement to us, and almost every group in the country, and certainly every respected group, makes those decisions to support the McCain-Kennedy-Edwards bill. Patients deserve to be able to know their doctor is taking care of them. You would not go to a doctor to get a tax form filled out; you would not go to an accountant to get your health care. We should keep medicine with the people who went to school, with those who know what good care is, and we should keep the bean counting and the bookkeeping with the people with the green eyeshades; they don't have white coats. I would rather go to someone in a white coat if I am in trouble and need a course of treatment. Do patients deserve the medications the doctor prescribe? The HMO says: We have another one we can substitute. If the doctor believes you need a certain medication, you should have it. Do patients deserve to get into a clinical trial if, in fact, they have no other recourse? Absolutely they do. That is why the McCain- Edwards-Kennedy bill is so important. Let's face it; HMO executives are making millions of dollars while denying needed care to our people. This is about who you stand up for, who you fight for. I have many stories. I ask the Chair what is the order now? It is 1 o'clock.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I voted against the Bond amendment. If this legislation is enacted, as I hope it will be, I believe we should review it periodically and make changes to ensure that it is working to protect Americans against the outrageous practices of some HMOs. An annual review, as required by the amendment, would be a good thing. It would give us insight into what is working and what may not be. However, this amendment goes beyond an annual review. If the number of uninsured individuals increases by more than 1 million, the Bond amendment gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to take away a person's right to sue an HMO. One unelected individual should not have the unilateral power to take away every American's right to hold an HMO accountable for its bad decisions. I am very supportive of efforts to increase the number of people with insurance. I think we need to address that issue. But this amendment does not do that. The problem of the uninsured will not be solved by allowing a single unelected government official to let HMOs off the hook for their actions.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I reflect on the career of one of the most respected and influential members of the California Supreme Court, Justice Stanley Mosk. Before his death at the age of 88, on June 19, 2001 at his home in San Francisco, Justice Mosk was the longest-serving member in the Court's 151-year history. He leaves an exceptional legacy that will be felt for many years in California and beyond. Among his many contributions he continuously worked, from the beginning of his career to the very end, to protect the civil rights and liberties of Californians and all Americans. He will be remembered for his integrity, his intellect and for his unwavering commitment to assuring that our courts and laws are based on the principles of justice and equality for all. Stanley Mosk was appointed to the California Supreme Court by Governor Edmund G. ``Pat'' Brown on August 8, 1964. He served on the Court for nearly 37 years. He began his career in the law during the Depression. Not many years after graduating from law school he rose to become executive secretary and legal advisor to California Governor Culbert Olson. He was appointed to the State Superior Court bench in 1942. At the time of his appointment, he was 31 years old, the State's youngest Superior Court judge. He served on the Superior Court bench for some 16 years, a tenure interrupted only by military service during World War II. He went on to win statewide election as California Attorney General, a position in which he served for 6 years, and was the first practicing Jew to be elected to that office. As attorney general, he fought for civil rights reforms and to strengthen antitrust laws. During his tenure on the Supreme Court, Justice Mosk wrote over 1,600 opinions many of which of which had a profound influence on California law, and were later echoed in opinions of other States' courts and the U.S. Supreme Court. He was often a man ahead of his time. As one example, in 1978 he wrote an opinion which outlawed racial discrimination in jury selection. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the same principle 8 years later. Justice Mosk also worked to promote the State constitution as an independent document, guaranteeing essential rights, distinct from the U.S. Constitution. Many States followed his lead. To quote current California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George, ``Stanley Mosk was a giant in the law.'' Although he is no longer with us, his passion for justice will live through his rulings for years to come.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent that I be given 1 additional minute and Senator Nelson 1 additional minute.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend and I will talk even faster. This HMO that denied a $54 prescription for a very sick little girl paid its chief executive officer $895 million in a merger. I ask you, where is the justice and the fairness in this? In her battle with cancer she is denied hope with a $54 prescription. One time during their battle, Sarah was denied a dose of a common chemotherapy drug, by her HMO because the HMO clerk did not know the computer code for the drug. Do you want people other than doctors making medical decisions about the fate of your loved ones? Luckily, her parents were able to switch insurance plans in the middle of their daughter's medical crisis. They believe that if they had not had this option that Sarah never would have made it. Sarah is now eight years old, but she still has a tumor and continues to be monitored. Or take the story of cancer patient, Ed Mycek of La Quinta, California. In 1997, Ed was diagnosed with prostate cancer. He discussed treatment options with his doctor and together they decided that the best option was a proton and 3-D conformal radiation treatment. His doctors then contacted the insurer about the treatment. The insurer agreed to pay for the full treatment and said that the authorization was on the way to the facility. But the authorization never arrived. When Ed contacted the insurance company about the delay, he was told that their decision had been reversed because the treatment was experimental. Patients that undergo this form of radiation treatment have a 98 percent chance of recovery, vs. the 83 percent recovery rate associated with prostate surgery. After weeks of tossing and turning, Ed decided to pay for the treatment up front in an attempt to save his own life. Ed survived, but he now faces a huge financial burden as a result of his insurance company's unwillingness to pay for his treatment. The stories I have just relayed to you are just a few examples of the tragedies that my constituents have endured as a result of healthcare in this country. They are strong reminders of why this nation needs a Patients' Bill of Rights now more than ever. I believe that the McCain-Edwards bill offers the best possible option for preventing these kinds of senseless tragedies from occurring in the future. The McCain-Edwards bill would provide coverage to 190 million Americans, including those in state and local government-sponsored plans and church plans. McCain-Edwards provides access to specialists even if such care isn't covered by a patient's plan. It also provides patients with other essential protections, like access to specialty care, women's health care services, emergency care--including emergency ambulance services, needed drugs, and clinical trials. The bill bans the use of financial incentives to health care providers to limit medically necessary services. It also prohibits plans from providing compensation to employees for encouraging denials. It holds HMOs accountable, and permits a patient to sue in state and federal court without preempting those states with laws regarding caps on damages. The bill allows a participant to designate a pediatrician as the primary care provider for a child. It allows a woman to obtain gynecological and pregnancy related care from an OB/GYN without requiring a referral or authorization by a primary care doctor. McCain-Edwards provides for inpatient hospital care for a patient following a mastectomy, lumpectomy or lymph node dissection for the treatment of breast cancer. It bans health care plans from prohibiting or restricting medical providers from freely communicating with their patients regarding their medical care and treatment. The McCain-Edwards bill requires the prompt payment of claims with respect to covered benefits and contains important whistleblower protections. Nearly every doctors' and nurses' association and patients' rights group in the country supports a strong, enforceable Patients' Bill of Rights. S. 1052 is supported by some 300 consumer and health care provider advocates. It has garnered this support precisely because it represents a balanced and even-handed approach and because it will ensure patient safety and health plan accountability without significantly raising employer costs or health plan premiums. In conclusion, the American people have waited far too long for a Patients' Bill of Rights. We have been debating this issue for 5 years. And far too many of our people are suffering as a result. I'm all for having a fair and open debate here in the Senate on this issue. The American people expect no less of us. But what the American people do not deserve and will not tolerate is an unnecessarily protracted debate cluttered with offers of ``poison pill'' provisions intended to cripple passage of this critically needed legislation. Unfortunately, I fear that this is exactly what will happen--a filibuster by amendment, as amendment after amendment after amendment is offered in an attempt to kill this bill, while its opponents talk about compromise. In reality, this bill is already a compromise. A balanced and fair compromise. Here's why: It strengthens protections for employers, ensuring that they are not liable unless they have participated directly in a health plan decision; it increases a state's flexibility, allowing it to maintain or develop its own patient protection laws if they are substantially equivalent to those in S. 1052; and it protects a patient's right to sue for damages in State and federal court, while including key compromises on liability. The American people not only deserve a strong, enforceable Patient's Bill of Rights. They deserve this bill to be passed as swiftly and as fairly as possible. Today is truly a new day in the Senate because today we have the opportunity to deliver on a promise--a promise to help our people live longer, healthier lives free from the horrors of red tape and litigation. A promise to make it a little easier for Americans to get the help they need from their doctors at the times when they need it the most. Today we have a chance not only to deliver on the promise that we have made to our constituents--our promise to take up this bill--but a chance to restore the promise of health care in this country. I say to my friend in the chair, who is such a fighter, that this is about why we are here, who we are, whom we represent, for whom we fight, and in whom we believe. Let's pass this bipartisan bill. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair. I thank Senator Kennedy for his courageous leadership with Senators Edwards and McCain, Senator Daschle, and others in fighting for this bipartisan bill. Mr. President, this is a new day in the Senate. We promised a new day when we saw the leadership change and we meant it. We have this bill in front of us because we want to do something to help the American people. There is no more important issue than this one. The American people have been waiting too long to have their grievances addressed. Our bill offers real protection to those patients. It is in fact bipartisan. The compromises have been made, and when the President says he will veto it, I say to the people in this country: Do not stand by silently. This bill protects you against the abuses of the HMOs. The President stands with the HMOs. We here pushing for this bill stand with you, the people. And I keep coming back to that because the HMOs oppose our bill and they support the Bush principles. Let me tell you why it is so important to pass this bill. Every day, 35,000 patients do not have access to the specialty care they need. Every day, the delay results in 10,000 patients being denied the diagnostic tests they need. Let me talk about a couple of cases in the time I have. One such case is that of Joyce Ching from Agoura, CA. Mr. President, 5 years ago I told her story--5 years ago when we should have passed this bill. I am going to tell her story again. In the summer of 1994, Joyce got sick. She suffered from severe abdominal pain. She could not get out of bed to play with her son. She goes to her HMO, and the doctor says: we don't need any tests; change your diet; something is wrong with your diet. So Joyce changes her diet. She is in agony. She calls again and again. The doctor says, oh, just give this diet a chance to work. Still, she begged him for tests. She was afraid maybe something would happen, that she would not be able to have another child. Finally she receives the referral to a gastroenterologist she had asked for months before, but it was too late. Joyce was in the late stages of colon cancer, and there was nothing anyone could do for her. Thirty-four years old. Why did it happen? If you look at the structure of the HMO, what happened was they capped her monthly expenses at $27.94. Why? Because she was only 34; actuarial tables said she was healthy. And the HMO said to her clinic, if you pay any more than that for that patient a month, you will get ``fined.'' You will have to pay for it at the end of the year. So the effort to keep the costs down cost Joyce her life. It took away a mother from a little boy. This bill will stop that because this bill will allow a referral to a specialist. This bill will allow us to make sure you see the doctor that you need. How about the story of Sarah Pedersen of San Mateo, CA, born with a brain tumor? When she turned 3 years old, the doctor determined that she needed to see a doctor who had expertise in brain tumors in children. Now, I have to say something. I am a little adult. I am only about 5 feet tall. Some even question if that is exactly accurate. I am not a child, though. A child is different. They are little and they are different. Their bodies are changing and growing. Their hormone levels are different and they need specialized care. So her doctor said she needed the expertise of a doctor who specialized in brain tumors in children. When Sarah's parents tried to get the appropriate referral, here is what they were told by the HMO: What difference does it make? Cancer is cancer. And by the way, I had the same incident in another case in San Mateo, a little girl who had a Wilms' tumor, which is a tumor of the kidney, and the HMO again said: We don't have a pediatric surgeon who deals with cancer. Just go see the surgeon who deals with adults. Had they ever operated on a child before? No. So Sarah's parents tried to get the appropriate referral, and they could not do it. Now, finally after too long a period, this little child with a brain tumor was allowed to see a specialist and her chemotherapy began. And as many of you are aware, my friends, chemotherapy causes severe nausea and vomiting, and the little girl suffered greatly. But when her parents tried to get the medicine to quell the nausea and the vomiting, Sarah was denied a $54 prescription because it was ``too expensive,'' says the HMO. A little girl of 3 years old is vomiting; she is nauseous; she is sick; she cannot get a prescription through the HMO.