Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to my dear friend and beloved colleague, Senator Paul D. Coverdell, who, as we all know, passed away a year ago today. Paul was a dear friend, who meant so much to each and every one of us here in the Senate. He was our friend, and we loved him very much. Paul was a kind man--a gentle man--a sweet man. The Senate is not the same without him. It is not the same because we miss his kindness, his spirit, and his unbelievable energy--energy that he brought to every task he undertook. Whatever it was, Paul would do it and do it effectively. He was one of the key people running this Senate. Candidly, he was that person not because of his leadership position, which was significant, but because of the fact that he just got things done. His effectiveness came because of his energy, because of his drive, because of his determination. It also came because he could get along with people on both sides of the aisle. He knew people. He understood them. He liked people, and people liked him back. That is what made Paul Coverdell effective. All of us have different stories and remember different things about our friend Paul. I worked with him on Central American issues, Caribbean issues, and Latin American issues. He cared passionately about the safety, security, and prosperity of our hemisphere. He paid particular attention to this hemisphere, because he understood that what happens here in America's backyard affects the people of Georgia, and it affects the people of this country. He brought this kind of thought and passion to all of the issues he tackled. On the first anniversary of Paul's death, we honor what he stood for, what he believed in, and what he accomplished here in this Senate. As a public servant, Paul touched the lives of his family, his friends and colleagues in the Senate, his constituents in his home State of Georgia, and the lives of millions of people throughout the United States and abroad. He is deeply missed and will always--always be remembered.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I remind my colleagues of a story I read in the New York Times almost exactly one year ago today. It was the July 15, 2000, obituary of a man named Jan Karski. I was absolutely fascinated by this man's life story and with the first anniversary of his death, I am reminded of the role he played in our modern history. Like few others, he had a unique window view into an appalling and shameful era of history--the Holocaust. Let me explain. During World War II, Jan Karski brought to the Allied leaders in the West--and at no small risk to his own life--what is believed to be the first eyewitness reports of Hitler's indescribable acts of hate and cruelty against the Jews. In 1942, Jewish resistance leaders asked Jan, then a 28-year-old courier for the Polish underground, to be their voice to the West--to convey to the Allies an actual eyewitness account of the Jewish genocide in Europe. He readily accepted this dreadful task, as he knew that someone had to tell the world exactly what was happening in Europe. Though he succeeded in relaying the nightmarish sights to Western leaders, his reports were met initially by indifference. While many others eventually would confirm Jan's horrifying accounts of the Jewish concentration camps and the Warsaw Ghetto in Poland, he was one of the first--and one of very few--to take a stand against these atrocities. We are discovering that Jan's voice was not the only warning of the wholesale slaughter of innocent human life by Nazi Germany. As we speak, a dedicated group of individuals, both in government and in the private sector, are declassifying and releasing to the public thousands and thousands of pages of previously classified material about Nazi war criminals, persecution, and looting. This effort is the result of the ``Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act''--legislation I wrote into law with my friends and colleagues from New York, Senator Patrick Moynihan and Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney. Just this past April, in fact, our law made history with the release of 10,000 pages of previously classified Central Intelligence Agency, (CIA), files on 20 key figures from the Nazi party, including Adolf Hitler, Klaus Barbie, Adolf Eichmann, Kurt Waldheim, Heinrich Mueller, and Josef Mengele. And, prior to that last summer, 400,000 pages of other historical documents were released. A number of those documents contained information that Fritz Kolbe provided to U.S. intelligence authorities in 1943. Mr. Kolbe was a member of the German resistance and worked in the German Foreign Office. Code-named ``George Wood,'' Mr. Kolbe put his life on the line by traveling to Switzerland, carrying highly sensitive information on Nazi activities for delivery to U.S. intelligence agents. A complete set of these documents in translation is now available for historical review. Also available in its entirety is the U.S. State Department's complete debrief of Mr. Kolbe from September 1945. This document shows that he did not act alone, but relied on what he called his ``Inner Circle,'' which consisted of as many as 20 other Germans. The names of these individuals are not well known members of the resistance--they are ordinary people, like Jan Karski. While the gruesome reality of Nazi Germany eventually became clear to the world and as the Allies acted to end Hitler's evil regime, Jan's job--his mission--never really ended. For the rest of his life, he carried with him the sights, the sounds, the smells, and the sadness of the Holocaust. Karski, himself, once said: ``This sin will haunt humanity to the end of time. It does haunt me. And, I want it to be so.'' Jan Karski wanted us all to be haunted by the Holocaust. He wanted us never to forget. He devoted his life to ensuring that such inhumane horror would be present forever in our collective conscience, so that we, above all else, will never let this dark chapter in our history ever, ever repeat itself. While we often think of heroes in terms of epic feats on the battlefield or in the face of great danger, Jan Karski is no less a hero for giving a voice to a silent slaughter. I ask my colleagues to think about that and to take some time to consider the life of Jan Karski and the life of Fritz Kolbe. Their stories, along with others newly discovered, help fill the holes of history, while revisiting a fundamental, troubling question of what the West knew about the Holocaust and when we knew it. I encourage my colleagues to learn more about Jan and Fritz. Read last year's New York Times obituary about Jan's life. Talk about his story with your families. To understand the Holocaust is to remember the lives of Jan Karski and Fritz Kolbe--to remember--``always remember,'' as Jan would say--what their sacrifices meant--and still mean--for our world.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Senators Byrd and Stevens, for working with me and so many others in support of the $92 million for the U.S. Coast Guard. This funding was included in the 2001 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill we recently passed. The Coast Guard needs this assistance to meet basic operational expenses and fund unexpected fiscal year 2001 budget requirements. We must support the critical services that the Coast Guard performs across the country. By passing this bill, we have demonstrated our strong support for its missions and will help it stay in the business of saving lives. Known as ``the rescue expert,'' our Coast Guard responds to 40,000 search and rescue cases each year, saving 3,800 lives. And, though it is the rescue and response missions that get the headlines, the Coast Guard also is very dedicated to preventing emergencies. The Coast Guard inspects all commercial ships--including cargo ships, tankers, and cruise ships. There are many other ways that the Coast Guard protects our citizens. One major component of Coast Guard operations is drug interdiction. Last year, the Coast Guard seized more than 66 tons of cocaine, with a street value of $4 billion--that's more than the total operating cost of the entire Coast Guard. Perhaps one of the Coast Guard's toughest jobs is the day to day enforcement of U.S. immigration law. Coast Guard men and women are challenged daily to carry out their responsibilities with due regard for the law, human dignity, and above all, the safety of human life. It is a tough job, and each case is unique. But day in and day out, the Coast Guard continues to carry out its duties with professionalism and a never-ending commitment to those it serves. These are just some of the vital missions the Coast Guard conducts. But the Coast Guard is reaching the point where it is stretched so thin and the condition of its equipment is so poor that I fear it will no longer be able to sustain daily operations. When compared to 41 other maritime agencies around the world, the ships that make up our Coast Guard fleet of cutters are the 38th oldest. Because the fleet is so old, the Coast Guard has had to spend twice as much money to fix equipment and hull problems. This is a very serious problem, Mr. President. It is a problem that does not result from mismanagement, but rather, it is a problem that has resulted from a continual lack of adequate funding for our Coast Guard. We need to provide the Coast Guard with the resources necessary so the American people can have the services that they require and deserve. The funding included in the 2001 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill certainly will help keep our Coast Guard afloat. And, we must remain committed to ensuring that our Coast Guard has adequate resources not just now, but well into the future. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on this vital issue.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, I rise to enter into a colloquy with Appropriations Chairman Byrd and the ranking member of Interior Appropriations, Senator Burns. I want to briefly discuss with my honorable colleagues an important conservation and recreation project that is of great interest to me and request their favorable consideration of $5 million for this project in the fiscal year 2002 Interior appropriations bill. Madam President, a few miles west of Ohio's State capital of Columbus flow two outstanding waterways: the Big and Little Darby Creeks. These two creeks are recognized as State and National Scenic Rivers for their crystal clear water, their abundance of wildlife, and their importance to many Ohioans as a source of high quality outdoor recreation. The Nature Conservancy has even listed these watersheds as one of the ``Last Great Places'' in the Western Hemisphere. On more than one occasion, I have had the pleasure of visiting these two creeks. As a matter of fact, Mr. President, I spent a wonderful day canoeing on the Big Darby Creek earlier this week with two of my children. Since 1959, the Franklin County Metro Parks have been purchasing land from willing sellers along these two creeks as part of their Battelle- Darby Creek Metro Park. The Park currently offers several recreational opportunities including a Streamside Classroom Education Program, a 1.6 mile walking trail, and several canoe access sites. In addition to welcoming the thousands of visitors the park receives each year, the park's dedicated and highly trained staff are conducting important wetland and prairie restoration programs in the area. At this time, there are several potential purchases that could substantially expand the park and ensure the protection of the creek and increase public access opportunities. I have urged my colleagues on the Interior Appropriations Committee to provide funding for these purchases. I have discussed my interest in providing financial support for further expansion of the park with Senators Byrd and Burns and I appreciate their willingness to enter into this colloquy. I also appreciate their interest in exploring funding opportunities for this project through the fiscal year 2002 Interior appopriations bill.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, this amendment is a very simple one. It limits class actions filed under this bill to suits filed within one company involving one plan. It is a commonsense approach. No individual's rights are in any way violated. Individuals have the right to file suits pursuant to this bill. In addition to that, class actions can still be filed, but they must be filed within one company, one plan. What it basically would prohibit is the big national class action suits that would possibly be filed. We are simply trying to balance the rights of the individual and the protection of the patient with the whole problem of increasing costs. We believe that the elimination of these national class action suits will certainly help to keep the costs down. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I yield back my time.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I have a modification of my amendment at the desk. I ask unanimous consent that it be accepted.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a man who employed his knowledge and vision to take America into Space. I am speaking of Cleveland resident, Abe Silverstein, who just passed away this month at 92 years of age, leaving a legacy of invention and innovation in the field of Space Flight. Abe Silverstein played a part in a number of ``space firsts,'' and received many prestigious honors for his work. In the company of Orville Wright, William Boeing, and Charles Lindbergh, Abe won the Guggenheim Award for the advancement of flight. Abe Silverstein designed, tested, and operated the world's first supersonic wind tunnel. It was the largest, fastest, and most powerful in the world. The research that was conducted with the tunnel allowed Abe to produce faster combat planes in World War II. This tunnel now resides in the NASA Glenn Space Research Facility in Cleveland, which Abe directed from 1961-1969. He was also the first director of NASA Space Flight Operations and worked on the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and Centaur projects. The Centaur project involved the launching vehicles that propelled spacecraft to Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. Serving his country in World War II by producing new technology and helping his country achieve its goals in Space was not enough for Abe Silverstein. After retiring from NASA, Abe went on to work for Republic Steel Corporation, where he developed pollution controls to help keep our air cleaner for future generations. Abe Silverstein always was contributing to his country, whether it be through wind-tunnel research or in serving as a Trustee at Cleveland State University. He was a man of great personal virtue and strength of character. I am proud, Mr. President, to honor this man today, who his NASA colleagues once described as ``a man of vision and conviction, [a man who] contributed to the ultimate success of America's unmanned and human space programs . . . his innovative, pioneering spirit lives on in the work we do today.'' I thank Mr. Silverstein for all his hard work and sacrifice, and I hope that my colleagues will join me in my gratitude.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, let me thank my colleagues, Senator Snowe and Senator Lincoln, whom I see on the floor, and Senator Nelson, who have worked long and hard on this amendment. The issue in front of us today is how do we help shield businessmen and businesswomen from liability at the same time providing access to the courts for people to sue HMOs. Everyone I think agrees, one of the things we worry about as we deal with this legislation is that we will do something that would cause businesses in this country to decide not to insure employees. That would be a very bad unintended consequence, so we have to be very careful as we write this legislation. The amendment in front of us today is really a compromise. It is a compromise based on the Frist-McCain bills. It is a compromise on the issue of employer liability, how we best protect the employers while at the same time ensuring people their right in court. I think we have really blended these bills. I think we have the best of both worlds. The situation and the language are clarified and made simpler. We started this debate with some basic principles on which everyone agreed. In both bills we agreed we wanted to try to protect businesses but at the same time we wanted to allow suits in limited circumstances against HMOs. The President agreed to that principle, and the two underlying bills do as well. This amendment, I believe, achieves that. This amendment effectively takes out 94 percent of businesses and provides them great protection. When you compare our amendment versus the underlying bill, it helps and improves the situation for the other 6 percent. We will talk about that in a moment. My colleague from Maine has talked about this concept of the designated decisionmaker. What do we mean by that? What we mean is let's just make it simple and let's make it plain; let's have the employer say who is going to make those decisions and therefore who will be sued. In essence, what we are saying is once that decision is made, that employer is no longer going to be subject to suits; the designated decisionmaker will be. How will this work in the real world? Let's say we have a small hardware store in Greene County, OH. Let's say they employ 12 people, and let's say what they do is they provide some health insurance and they do that by going out in the market, finding the best deal they can, and buying this group coverage for their 12 employees. Under this amendment, once they contracted with that insurance carrier, they would have automatically made that designated decisionmaker decision. They would have designated that automatically, that group as being the designated decisionmaker. They would have to do nothing. They cannot make a mistake. It takes no affirmative action on their part. That is going to improve the language we have in front of us. The other way of doing it, the way the underlying bill did it, was to talk about direct participation. Frankly, I think the language in the bill was pretty good. But I think it needs to be improved. By having the designated decisionmaker, it is a lot more clear. What will happen as a practical matter is this. As we all know, anybody can sue anybody. We cannot prevent suits, but we certainly can discourage them, and we certainly can provide when suits are filed against a business, the business has the ability to get out of that lawsuit very quickly. So by using the concept of the designated decisionmaker, as a practical matter, if a suit were brought against a businessperson, if a lawyer were foolish enough to file that suit, the business would simply have to go into court and file a copy of that designated decisionmaker decision and would be dismissed from the case. As a practical matter, this language significantly improves the underlying bill and will make a big difference. Our amendment does build on the two bills in front of us, the two bills we have been talking about and have been considering, the Frist- Breaux bill and the underlying bill we have in front of us today, the McCain-Kennedy bill. I believe our amendment would protect business owners from needless lawsuits as well as protect patients who rely on employer-sponsored health care plans for their medical needs. I believe this amendment brings together the best of all worlds by providing certainty, much- needed certainty to employers, employees, and, yes, to health care providers. That is something we desperately need in any patient protection bill. Based on the designated decisionmaker concept in the Frist-Breaux- Jeffords bill, our amendment would automatically, as I have indicated, remove liability from small business owners and shift it to health care providers or other designated entities. In addition, our amendment stipulates this designated decisionmaker must follow strict actuarial guidelines and be capable of assuming financial responsibility for the liability coverage. This means the designated decisionmaker could not be a hollow shell, unable to come up with the money, the assets, to defend against potential lawsuits and financial damages and be able to satisfy those losses. Our language ensures that the designated decisionmaker cannot be a straw man, cannot be a sham that has no ability to pay a patient in the event a lawsuit is filed and that damages are in fact awarded. In creating the designated decisionmaker process, it makes it easier for employers that provide health insurance coverage to be protected. We think that is a major step forward for businesses, and especially for patients. I say that because the fear of being sued often becomes so great that employers simply stop offering health care coverage. We don't want that to happen under this bill. We simply can't let that happen. The reality is in this country that already there are more than 42 million Americans, including 10 million children, who have no health care coverage. The last thing we want to do is add to this number. Our amendment greatly diminishes the likelihood that employers will stop offering health care coverage. Again, we believe it is the best of both worlds as it allows patients the ability to sue the designated decision maker if they are denied medical benefits to which they are entitled by their health plans. But at the same time it protects employers from unnecessary and costly lawsuits. Under our amendment, employees would have the comfort of certainty and the comfort of knowing that the designated decisionmaker is ultimately responsible for health care decisions and, therefore, that individual or that entity bears the liability for a lawsuit. In another effort to keep employees insured, our amendment also adds language to the underlying McCain-Kennedy bill to limit the liability of businesses to self-insure and self-administer their health care plans. The fact is that these employers are assuming additional risk by financing and by administering health care coverage to employees. To that extent, I believe we must take their unique circumstances into consideration. This amendment does that. Ultimately, our objective is to encourage employers to offer and to continue to offer their employees health care coverage. We don't want to discourage them out of fear that they will be sued. The reality is that these self-insured and self-administered plans are doing some very good things for their employees. We want them to continue to do these good things. Our amendment will help them keep their employees, their families, and their children insured. That is what the Patients' Bill of Rights should be all about. Further, our amendment improves the original Frist language by making very clear exactly who is liable. The amendment leaves no room for ambiguity because it would not allow the designated decisionmaker to be broken into sub-decisionmakers. One, and only one, entity would be the sole bearer of liability. We think that is an improvement. Finally, our language would strike vague and ambiguous language in the underlying McCain-Kennedy bill that is of great concern to employers. This language is a catch-all section of the bill that could open employers to a flood of lawsuits simply because of the imprecise nature of the language. Let me read the exact language currently in the Kennedy-McCain bill in regard to the cause of action relating to provisions of health benefits. There is the (ii) section. This is what is in the underlying bill: Or otherwise fails to exercise ordinary care in the performance of the duty under the terms and conditions of the plan with respect to the participant or beneficiary. We believe this language is simply too vague. We eliminate it in regard to businesses and their potential liability. This language that I just quoted creates an explicit cause of action. This means employers could be the subject of lawsuits that none of us currently has any way to anticipate. The language is broad. It is too broad as currently drafted. Our amendment would completely remove this section. Finally, I think we must recognize what this amendment does, but also we need to be very clear about what it does not do. Does this amendment solve every problem with this bill? The answer is that it does not. It does what we have said it does. It deals with the heart of the liability problem in regard to businesses, but it does not solve all the problems. I think it is important for us to have truth-in-labeling with this amendment. It is a good amendment. It is a probusiness amendment. It is an amendment that will encourage business men and women to do what we want them to do, which is good public policy, to insure their employees. It will give them important protections. It will give them more assurances. That is why we ought to pass this amendment. It is a significant improvement over the underlying bill that is in front of us. But it does not solve all the problems. It only deals with a portion of the pie. It does not deal with the caps issue. It does not deal with where the lawsuits should be brought and the issue of whether they should be brought exclusively in the Federal court or in the State court. It does not deal with the class action question, about which I am very concerned. And I know my friend from Tennessee has been working on this issue as well. It does not deal with the class action issue. I intend to have an amendment later today or tomorrow in regard to the class action issue. We want to say what it does. It helps businesses do the right thing. It encourages people to continue to insure their employees. But there are many things it does not do. I would be more than happy to yield to my colleague.

Mr. DeWINE. I agree.

Mr. DeWINE. I would be more than happy to answer the question. In the original language that we have been negotiating for the last few days, we could not figure out any way to really help the roughly 6 percent of businesses that self-insure and self-administer. My colleague Senator Lincoln has brought to our attention and businesses have brought to our attention the fact that this amendment as originally written really did not help those 6 percent. Why? Why originally didn't it help? The basic problem is they do make medical decisions. They are really effectively operating as their own HMO. We thought about how to protect them and give them some help while at the same time preserving their employees' rights to sue just as everybody else has. We came up with a compromise. My colleague Senator Lincoln may want to get involved in this and explain it a little bit. But basically it says for those self-insured, self-administered plans, we carve out a special exemption for them because of the special status. We say they are excluded and exempted from lawsuits brought in the Federal court on the nonmedical decisions based on the contract decisions. That is a break they are getting. We think it can be justified by what they do because we want to encourage them to continue to do what they do. Why is the other group that you have mentioned included? They are included because they operate basically the same way the self-insured, self-administered businesses do. They basically take the risk. They basically make the medical decisions. I appreciate the question, but I would disagree with my colleague the way he has categorized it. This is no special break for unions. This is treating people who operate the same way the same way in the language. I cannot come up with any way to justify carving them out and not giving them the exception because they are operating under the same principles that they are basically self-insured and are basically making the medical decisions, and doing it the same way. So when you compare apples to apples, you ought to treat them the same. That is why we did it. We think it is justified. We think it makes sense. The option, candidly, would be not to give the 6 percent of businesses this break, not to give them the encouragement to try to get them to continue to do what they are doing. But we came to the conclusion that we should try to help them. We are not helping them immensely, but we are helping them.

Mr. DeWINE. If those are the facts.

Mr. DeWINE. Let me suggest we take a look at that as we continue this debate. We have a little time to debate. Let us look at the language. I again want to reiterate something, though. And I do not want any of my colleagues who are watching this back in their office or who are in this Chamber to misunderstand this. This is a limited carve-out. This is not a huge carve-out. Basically, what this carve-out says is, because of the unique situation of the self-insured, self-administered plans, we are going to exempt them from lawsuits, based on contract, in Federal court--they are not going to be exempt from other lawsuits and in State courts, and based on medical decisions. So it is a limited carve-out. I do not want anybody who is watching this debate to think this is some huge carve- out. It is a carve-out on a limited basis. Our intent was to treat people equally who were in that unique circumstance. I know my colleague from Tennessee has been wrestling with this for a couple years: How do you deal with these folks who have this unique problem? I say to my colleague from New Hampshire, this may not be perfect, but we think it improves the status quo. That is sort of what we are about today: Trying to improve the status quo.

Mr. DeWINE. If I could reclaim my time to answer the question.

Mr. DeWINE. I will reclaim my time. I thank my colleague for his comments. The intention of the language is to treat people equally. If a union does in fact make the medical decisions and if they are operating in the same way that the Wal-Marts of the world are, they ought to be treated the same way. If they are not operating the same way, then they should not be treated the same.

Mr. DeWINE. I can tell you what the intent was. And, as you know, we have been drafting the language, and it has been going on and on. I can only tell you what the intent was. I am more than happy to take a minute and look at that language again with your comments in mind. The intent was to treat people who operated one way equally. In regard to unions, the intent was we would cover union plans that were the same as the Wal-Marts of the world which are self-insured and self- administered. That was the intent. It was not the intent to go one inch beyond that or to cover one group or one plan beyond that. I will bluntly say, if the language in here is not consistent with that intent, we need to go back to the drawing board and look at the language. That was the intent of the four or five of us who were working on this issue. That was the specific intent, and that was the instruction that was given to staff. If the lawyers did not come back with that language, and I did not catch it when I read it, I apologize, and we will look at that. But it is going to take us a few minutes to get the language out. My understanding of what my colleague has said is that if a union does in fact operate a plan, and they are in fact self-insured and self-administered, he believes they should be treated the same way; anybody who runs a plan with those two qualifications should be treated the same way. Is my understanding correct?

Mr. DeWINE. No, I will not yield yet. We have had criticism of this amendment from people who say it does not solve all the problems. I came to this Chamber and said, no, it does not solve all the problems, but we are trying. And we are trying with this amendment. If we can improve the amendment, and if we can get the language more precise that does it, I will be more than happy to do it. Yes, I yield to my colleague.

Mr. DeWINE. Would that include the first vote?

Mr. DeWINE. So we would have in the morning then 4 minutes evenly divided prior to the first vote?

Mr. DeWINE. I yield the floor and thank my colleague from Nevada.

Mr. DeWINE. I inquire, how much time remains?

Mr. DeWINE. I will respond to my colleague and I appreciate his comments. He is closer to the courtroom in time than I am, and it has been many years since I have practiced law. What this comes down to is that we are creating new opportunities for lawsuits, obviously, in this bill. What we are about is a balancing test, a balancing question. It is a matter of public policy. We have to decide. As we create new causes of action, new opportunities to file lawsuits, I think it is legitimate to look around and say: How expansive do we want to allow class actions to be under this new cause of action? It seems to me language we have included, which is basically-- basically, I say--what was in the Frist bill originally, is a rational way to do it. It doesn't ban class actions but basically says we are going to limit them. I think it is a balancing test and Members are going to have to make their own decision whether they think it is worth providing people with the opportunity to have nationwide class actions. Candidly, with the tremendous cost this is probably going to incur, that ultimately is going to be paid and ultimately going to drive up health care costs. I think Members have to make that decision. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. DeWINE. I appreciate my colleague's comments. I think they are well taken. We will get about the business of dealing with that. The point is very well taken. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE. Just to respond to my colleague--and I do appreciate his comments about RICO--again it is a balancing question each Member is going to have to decide. Just to clarify things, I want to make it clear, the way this is drafted, we do not affect any pending issues, so those suits would not in any way be affected. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, we have stated our intent. I think we ought to get about our business and come up with the language to do that, some possible language that we could use. It is always dangerous to try to draft language on the fly on the Senate floor. I will at least throw this out for possible discussion. We could add ``to the extent the Taft-Hartley Plan Act as self-insured, self- administered plans,'' something to that effect of basically qualifying so that you would get down to whatever the number is--I don't know what the number is--that are self-insured and self-administered. We certainly could do that. There is no reason that cannot be done.