Bob Casey

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise for a few moments to do something that I had hoped to do yesterday but didn't have the opportunity in the midst of our hearings on Iraq and so much else going on. I don't want to miss the opportunity to commend so many people in Somerset County in Pennsylvania, who, on two occasions--Monday night and, of course, yesterday--were observing the 9/11 remembrances. In the case of the Monday night event I attended at the Somerset Alliance Church in Somerset, PA, I wanted to commend them for so much. There are several groups--I will not mention names--such as the National Park Service, of course, that helped bring that event together, as well as doing so much other work at the crash site; the families of Flight 93, the Flight 93 Advisory Commission, the Flight 93 Memorial Task Force, and so many others too numerous to name. On Monday night, the service I attended was a night of grief, a night of gratitude, and I think a night of renewal. There was grief in the obvious sense that we still grieve for those who perished heroically on September 11, 2001, at every site--in this case in Shanksville, Somerset County, PA. Certainly, it was a night to grieve. It was also a night to express gratitude in two ways at least: One, gratitude for those who gave their lives heroically so that the plane crashed in Pennsylvania instead of coming here to destroy the Capitol or some other part of our Government, and where more lives might have been lost, as well as, I think, to express gratitude to those brave Americans on that plane, but also to express the gratitude of the people who came after that tragedy in Somerset County, where the families, in particular, wanted to use this Monday night ceremony to thank the people of Somerset County. So many people have provided some measure of comfort over all these 6 years to the families who loved and lost. So I think it was also a night for gratitude. Finally, it was a night to express our shared feeling of renewal, renewing not just our commitment to take care of those families and to do all we can to help them, but also our collective renewal to continue the fight for the ages--the fight against terrorism all across our country and across the world. So it was a night to renew our commitment to that basic shared promise that we make to each other that we will never stop fighting against terrorism, and we will be ever vigilant against this threat to all of America and, indeed, to the world. I wanted to pay tribute to those in Somerset County who came together this past Monday night for a ceremony entitled ``The Spirit of Community: A Service of Remembrance for the Passengers and Crew of Flight 93.'' I thank, in particular, the families for paying tribute to those in the community of Somerset County who have helped them. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 320, I voted ``yea.'' It was my intention to vote ``nay.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome of that vote.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I wish to take a couple of moments to highlight the life of one of our brave fighting men who lost his life in Afghanistan. His name is Jan Argonish. He was a sergeant in the Army National Guard. On the last business day before our August recess was over, I was in a line in Peckville, PA, at his viewing where all of his family and his friends paid him last respects and prayed for him. Just to give a sense of the scene, the context of this scene, this was a viewing line that lasted hours and hours. I was in the line from about 6 o'clock to 8:30. So for all the reasons we celebrate the service and the sacrifice of our brave troops, I wish to highlight the life of SGT Jan Argonish, who passed away at the age of 26 when he was killed in action in an ambush in Kunar Province in Afghanistan. Jan Argonish was a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, with nearly 10 years of service in the Pennsylvania National Guard. He volunteered to help train soldiers of the Afghan National Army. For SGT Jan Argonish, this was his third deployment since September 11, 2001. He was born in Peckville, PA, and was a resident most recently in Scranton, my hometown. He was a 1999 graduate of Valley View High School, where he played football and was on the swim team. He went on from high school to enlist in the Army. He was a graduate of the Army's infantry and mortar schools and tanker school at Fort Knox, KY. He received numerous awards for his brave service--the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart, the National Defense Service Medal, and on and on, award after award. He was a member of the Sacred Heart Church in Peckville, PA, and VFW Post 5544 in Jessup, PA. Since February 2006, he was employed as a corrections officer at the U.S. Penitentiary Canaan in Waymart, PA. Sergeant Argonish leaves behind a family. One member of his family I will never forget, his 8-year-old son Jakub, who was in the viewing line to greet hundreds and hundreds of people. He was wearing a State trooper's hat which was, obviously, too large for an 8-year-old. But in so many ways, that image of that young boy, Jakub, is an image I will never forget, and in so many ways it is symbolic of and a metaphor of what so many families have lost when they have lost a loved one in Iraq, Afghanistan, or fighting around the world. Even someone who is old enough to understand it better than 8-year-old Jakub did--so many families are not ready for the horror and the trauma of that loss. So I am thinking of SGT Jan Argonish today. I am thinking of his service. We are remembering and praying for his family and, of course, all those who are doing the brave work our troops are doing in Afghanistan and, of course, in Iraq during this very profound week we are about to enter into, the week where we think about the victims of 9/11 and we think about our troops.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Monday, September 10, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Confronting the Terrorist Threat to the Homeland: Six Years After 9/11.''

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. I join my esteemed colleague in having assured myself that S. 558 will not serve to preempt in any way the services and benefits provided to the citizens of Pennsylvania by Pennsylvania Act 106. I know that our offices have collaborated extensively in this analysis and have consulted with HELP Committee staff and Senator Domenici's staff, and that our views are borne out by extensive legal and scholarly analysis of the preemptive provisions of S. 558.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to clarify my support for S. 558, the Mental Health Parity Act of 2007. This bipartisan legislation introduced by Senators Domenici and Kennedy, seeks to provide parity between health insurance coverage of mental health benefits and benefits for medical and surgical services. I join my colleague, the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, in establishing for the record today the reasons for our joint support for this bill. I also thank Chairman Kennedy and Senator Domenici for joining us in this discussion.

Mr. CASEY. In the letter, Professor Kofman writes: The changes made to the preemption section in S. 558 mean that the current HIPAA federal floor standard would apply to the new Mental Health Parity law (just like it applies to the current law passed in 1996). This would mean that more protective (of consumers) state insurance laws would apply to insurers that sell coverage to employers. This bill would also mean new federal protections for people in self-insured ERISA plans. This would be a tremendous victory for patients who need coverage for mental health services. This approach continues the public policy established in 1996 in HIPAA--an approach that allows states to be more protective of consumers while setting a federal minimum set of protections for workers and their families. If enacted, this bill would provide much needed minimum protections for people in self-insured ERISA plans who currently are not protected by states because of ERISA preemption. It also raises the bar for insured products. Mr. SPECTER For the purpose of further clarifying congressional intent of S. 558 and its application to state law and specifically Pennsylvania Act 106, will the senior Senator from Massachusetts and the senior Senator from New Mexico yield for questions from Senator Casey and myself? Mr. KENNEDY I will be happy to do so. Mr. DOMENICI As will I. Mr. SPECTER I thank Chairman Kennedy and Senator Domenici. Why doesn't the Mental Health Parity Act have its own preemption provision? Mr. KENNEDY It is our intention to establish a Federal floor and not a Federal standard or Federal caps. Thus, we decided to use the already-existing language and standard found within part 7 of ERISA, which is where the current mental health parity law already resides, and where S. 558 will be codified. This law contains the narrowest possible preemption language, and is meant to preempt only those state laws that are less beneficial to consumers and insured, from the standpoint of the consumer and insured, than this new Federal law. Mr. CASEY The Health Insurance and Portability Accountability Act, HIPAA, preemption standard that will apply prevents State laws that ``prevent the application of requirements of this part,'' which refers to part 7 of ERISA. Do the medical management provisions of section 712A(b) constitute ``requirements of this part'' that might preempt State laws under this standard? Mr. DOMENICI No. Section 712A(b) says that managed care plans ``shall not be prohibited from'' carrying out certain activities. It does not require them to do so, and this is not a ``requirement of this part.'' This section recognizes that plans have flexibility. It is not our intention to preempt any State laws that regulate, limit, or even prohibit entirely the medical management of benefits. That is one of the reasons we are using a preemption standard--the existing HIPAA standard that so clearly does not preempt such a law. Mr. SPECTER Would a State law that establishes a physician or psychologist's certification, as the only lawful prerequisite to managed care coverage of a particular treatment, be preempted? Mr. KENNEDY Such a law is not preempted, and it is not our intention to preempt any such law. Mr. CASEY What about a State law requiring insurers or managed care companies to cover an entire continuum of care? Mr. DOMENICI Mr. President, it is my understanding that such a law would not be preempted. S. 558 is a Federal floor, and nothing in such a State law Senator Casey describes would prevent the application of any requirements of part 7 of ERISA. Mr. SPECTER Would State laws that place coverage decisions squarely in the hands of treating clinicians be preempted? Mr. KENNEDY Absolutely not. Mr. CASEY Focusing specifically on Pennsylvania, as you may be aware, the citizens of Pennsylvania just received a significant court victory from the Commonwealth Court, upholding a Pennsylvania law that was previously mentioned here, Pennsylvania Act 106. That State law and the recent decision in The Insurance Federation of Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Insurance Department, removes managed care barriers to addiction treatment. What effect will S. 558 have on that State law, or on State efforts to enforce that law or to find remedies for violations of that law? Mr. KENNEDY This bill would have no effect upon that law. Mr. CASEY Would any State laws be preempted? Mr. DOMENICI Yes, State law requirements that would prevent the application of a requirement of S. 558 by, for example, endorsing a less consumer-friendly level of coverage or benefits. For example, a State law that prohibited an insurance company from selling policies providing for full parity in coverage for mental health services and medical/surgical services would be preempted. Mr. CASEY Would the current legislation, S. 558, have any effect on any provisions of Pennsylvania Act 106, or on any State efforts to enforce provisions of that law or to find remedies for violations of any provisions of that law? Mr. KENNEDY It would have no effect. Pennsylvania's Act 106 is an example of the kind of consumer protection law that is not preempted by the federal floor created in S. 558. Mr. SPECTER I appreciate this discussion with my colleague from Pennsylvania, Chairman Kennedy and Senator Domenici. I thank Chairman Kennedy, Ranking Member Enzi, Senator Domenici and others on the HELP Committee who have worked so hard to establish these critical benefits for citizens across our great country. And I thank them for this discussion to clarify our support for S. 558. Mr. CASEY I also want to express my deepest thanks to HELP Committee Chairman Kennedy, Senator Domenici, HELP Committee Ranking Member Enzi, and all members and staff who have worked so hard to make this long time dream a reality. I greatly appreciate this discussion and our establishment of intent regarding S. 558.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, the Mental Health Parity Act of 2007 amends the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, ERISA, and the Public Health Service Act to require a group health plan that provides both medical and surgical benefits and mental health benefits to ensure that: (1) the financial requirements applicable to such mental health benefits are no more restrictive than those of substantially all medical and surgical benefits covered by the plan, including deductibles and copayments; and (2) the treatment limitations applicable to such mental health benefits are no more restrictive than those applied to substantially all medical and surgical benefits covered by the plan, including limits on the frequency of treatments or similar limits on the scope or duration of treatment.

Mr. CASEY. I thank Chairman Kennedy and Senator Domenici, and I note in particular that Professor Mila Kofman, Associate Research Professor, Health Policy Institute, Georgetown University, wrote to Senator Specter and myself on August 2, 2007, extolling the benefits of S. 558. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record Professor Kofman's letter.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc; that any statements be printed in the Record, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the HELP Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 221, and that then the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 290, submitted earlier today.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to, the committee-reported substitute, as amended, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements be printed in the Record, without intervening action or debate.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 99, S. 845.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, we are going to close for the night. I do wish to make a couple references to my friend from Arizona on this issue. I know he will be offering his amendment tomorrow. We will discuss and debate it more. But I have to say we have been hearing a lot of these arguments all week about crowd-out. I would say, respectfully, a lot of Americans feel crowded out right now because they have no health insurance. It is a terrible crisis in the life of too many Americans. We can debate this, and I think the numbers show there is a lot more crowd-out in Medicare Part D, and that was voted overwhelmingly by the last Congress. I think there is still a lot of debate to go on this, but I have to say there are still some people on the other side of the aisle who have been debating different points of this legislation all week--but they have their insurance. They are called Senators and their families. They have insurance. I do, the Presiding Officer does, the Senator from Arizona has insurance as a Member of the Senate. I am tired of some of the arguments we have heard. I do not attribute them to this Senator, but too often arguments have been made all during this week as a way to block this legislation from going forward. I think it is about time we got to a vote. Too often, in the last couple days, all we have heard are ways to slow this down, to impede the progress. We have heard misinformation about poverty level numbers, that people above 300 percent of poverty are getting children's health insurance right now. That is not true under this program. I think we will have more time to debate this, but we have seen a lot of crowding out already. The American people have had to suffer. I think it is a question worthy of debate. But I hope when all the debating is over, all the speeches and all the debates on both sides lead to what the American people expect from this legislation, which is that we cover 3.2 million more American children. That is the question before the Senate. We are either going to do that or not. Unfortunately, there are some people here who want to agree with the President. If the President's proposal on children's health insurance-- make no mistake; if we rubberstamp the President, 1.4 million American children will lose their health insurance. That is the choice. That is the choice for people on both sides of the aisle. I am pleased that in the Finance Committee we had consensus, a 17 to 4 vote. The choice is very clear: Support the President's proposal, 1.4 million kids lose their coverage; support the bipartisan children's health insurance initiative, 3.2 million children more than the 6.6 are covered. That is the way to go for America. We can have a debate tomorrow about a couple of points. But this debate is going to end this week, and we better leave this town having supported 3.2 million American children getting their health insurance.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 291 which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. I ask for its second reading and object to my own request.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I understand that H.R. 2831 has been received from the House and is at the desk.

Mr. CASEY. I ask for its first reading.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the majority leader or his designee introduces FISA legislation on August 2, they be considered as having received their first reading on the legislative day of August 1, 2007.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Executive Calendar Nos. 162, 230, 231, 243, 244, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 257 through 272, and all nominations placed on the Secretary's desk; further, that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from the following nominations: PN 579, Eric G. John to be Ambassador to Thailand, and PN 604, Michael Michalak to be Ambassador to Vietnam; that the Agriculture Committee be discharged from the following nominations: PN 479, Jill Sommers, and PN 480, Bartholomew Chilton, to be Commissioners of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission; that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, that any statements thereon be printed in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, if there is no further business today, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.