Bill Frist

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Governmental Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 101, and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. FRIST

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

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, today there will be a period of morning business until 4 p.m. At this time, I ask unanimous consent that the time be divided as follows: The time until 1 o'clock under the control of the Democratic leader or his designee; the time from 1 to 1:30 under the control of the Republican leader or his designee; 1:30 to 2 o'clock under the control of the Democratic leader or his designee; 2 o'clock to 3 o'clock under Republican control.

Mr. FRIST. During today's session, the Senate is expected to complete the short-term continuing resolution which was received from the House. I am not aware of any requests for a rollcall vote on that resolution, and therefore we would hope to pass the 1-week extension by unanimous consent. In addition, there are a couple of nominations that are expected to receive committee action shortly. I would expect the full Senate to act on those nominations expeditiously following the committee's reporting of those nominations. This afternoon, we will alert all Members as to the expected schedule for any rollcall votes.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, there are three bills at the desk that are due for their second readings. I ask unanimous consent that the three bills now be read for the second time, and I ask unanimous consent that there be an objection, en bloc, to any further action on these bills following the readings.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise to very briefly comment on the President's message last night and to initiate my own reflection, which I hope to have the opportunity to continue over the next several days and weeks as we respond to the vision that he painted for us in a very eloquent, very direct, and very focused way last night. Last night, the President said we will not deny or ignore or pass along today's problems to future leaders and future generations. He said we will confront them head on, we will confront them directly, we will do it with clarity, and we will do it with courage. He is right. We have much to do. And our success in this body very much depends on our own focus and our own clarity and our own courage. Let me begin with health care--specifically, this whole issue of Medicare, strengthening and improving Medicare and prescription drugs. Last night, the President made it clear that if seniors and individuals with disabilities are satisfied, if they like and are pleased with the Medicare coverage they have today--the way the Medicare system works for them today--that they will, in this vision that he paints, have the option of not changing anything, for keeping it just the way it is. Remember, about two out of three of our seniors and individuals with disabilities today do have some prescription drug coverage. Many of those individuals may say: I don't want to change anything. He also made it clear--and this is what is exciting to me as a physician and as one who has taken care of thousands of Medicare patients--that seniors and individuals with disabilities should have another option, another alternative. That is best understood by saying they will have an opportunity to choose from among a menu of options, much like Bill Frist does as a Senator or Senator Kit Bond from Missouri does or Senator Hagel or others. We hear from the other side of forcing people into HMOs. Let's make it very clear that the option the President began to spell out last night--that I believe in heartily--is that we should give seniors the same options we have to choose from among a variety of plans, not just HMOs, as the other side of the aisle comes back to because they know HMOs are demonized today, but an option of coordinated plans which include prescription drugs. Nine million Federal employees have this option for a type of care that we all consider very good, that does allow us to choose our own doctors, if you choose such a plan. And those are the sort of options that will be made for seniors. It works for us. It works for 9 million employees. It works for our staffs. So don't seniors deserve the same opportunities? It is going to take real courage for anyone to tell Americans they should not have the same options that we have, which is the President's proposal: to give those same opportunities to seniors and individuals with disabilities. Opponents of choice in health care for seniors are saying the President's plan forces individuals to give up their doctors, their family doctors, or forces them to use a particular physician. Indeed, if a senior so chooses to go that route, maybe for larger benefits, higher prescription drug coverage, that may be one route to going in, but that is not what we necessarily have to do. We have that broader choice. To say that people are going to be forced into plans where they have to give up their physicians, that is not what happens to 9 million Federal employees unless that is what they choose to do. I am in the same program, and I choose my own doctor. What we are hearing is a lot of the same old, tired rhetoric. And it really comes down to scare tactics. When we last talked about Medicare, improving Medicare, in the Senate, this word, ``Mediscare,'' became popularized because that is what people saw, that is what the rhetoric resulted in. Indeed, some people are using these ``Mediscare'' tactics to frighten seniors and to create anxiety and insecurity. It is time for us to pull together, in a bipartisan way, to elevate the discussion well above that. The pursuit of these scare tactics results in nothing but fear and anxiety. Our seniors simply deserve better. The President talked about the Federal employees' health care program as one model. Under that model, there is a strong public-private partnership where you get the very best out of the private models combined with the very best oversight and, yes, regulation in terms of the Government model, and you marry the two of those together in a way that you can best--in a coordinated way--take care of prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of seniors and individuals with disabilities. Many of those plans, as I implied earlier, have an unlimited choice of physicians. In my particular plan, that I chose in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, I can go to any physician I would like. So to say it takes away choice is, to me, not being entirely honest with what is being proposed. To do the right thing for our seniors and individuals with disabilities is going to take a lot of the focus and the clarity that the President spoke about last night in his address. It is going to take a lot of courage in this body to focus on the policy itself--on the policy itself--and not on the politics and the ``Mediscare'' tactics, to really get down to the substance of the issue itself. Politics and policy each have their time and their place, but when we are talking about the health care for 40 million Americans now and in the future--in essence, all Americans--we really do need to put politics aside. Politics has no place when we are talking about the health of Americans. My first priority--from medical school, internship, residency, fellowship, and in the practice of medicine--has been to improve access to the best, most affordable health care. As majority leader, in working with the Republican caucus and the Democratic caucus, I want to continue that lifelong commitment to improved access. It is clear the current Medicare system, the 2003 system, has not kept up with the advances that have been made in preventive health care--in terms of prescription drugs, in terms of chronic care management--because the system has become too rigid. We are essentially operating with a system designed in 1965, which has been slow to change because the system worked well through the late 1960s, 1970s, and even into the early 1980s. However, we have now gotten to a point where the current Medicare system is limiting choice, where our seniors don't even have a choice of prescription drugs. Prescription drugs has become equally powerful to the operating rooms, where I spent my career using the surgeon's knife. A survey this month by the AMA tells us that nearly half, 50 percent, of all physicians today are considering either reducing their Medicare patients--the number of patients they will see--or they are leaving the Medicare Program. Why? Because of reduced Medicare reimbursement year after year--a 5-percent reduction last year and another 5 percent this year, they see continued reimbursement below their cost, and they simply cannot stay in business. The President mentioned medical liability insurance last night. I think it is important to address it head on because we are reaching a threshold where we are about to see catastrophe. It comes down to frivolous lawsuits. Can we tolerate the lawsuits when the escalation and number of lawsuits, and the money entailed, takes money away from health care and drives people from the practice of medicine to the point that we are having trauma centers close down--most notably in Nevada last year. And 6 weeks ago, we saw the doctors in West Virginia--it hurts me to even think about going on strike in terms of what physicians are doing. When you cannot stay in business, physicians really have no choice. We saw what happened in West Virginia. The President said frivolous lawsuits have not cured one patient. He is exactly right. I can tell you what will cure patients, and that is changing our medical liability system so doctors can afford to heal, so they can be allowed to heal. Again, as a doctor, I will fight for the right of any patient to sue and receive fair and just compensation if they have been a legitimate victim of a medical malpractice incident or an error. That is critical and that is right. What is not right, and what I will continue to fight against, is the reduction of access to good health care because doctors and hospitals can no longer afford to continue doing what they do best--diagnose, treat, and heal, provide care--because of these skyrocketing costs that are associated with frivolous, illegitimate lawsuits. It comes down to the fact that family doctors are having a hard time staying in business and keeping the doors open; trauma units are shutting down; pregnant women in rural America are having a hard time finding an obstetrician because they are having to leave that particular area because of the exorbitant rates they are forced to pay, not because they are bad doctors but because of these skyrocketing lawsuits. It is going to take laser-like focus to fix this, and I agree with the President that we have no option but to fix it now. The President introduced many positive policies last night. I want to comment on one that means a great deal to me that I think we will be able to address in this body early in the session, and that is the international pandemic of the HIV/AIDS virus. What the President said last night was truly historic, truly unprecedented in the history of the world, addressing head on a problem that has killed 23 million people in the last 20 years--a virus nobody knew anything about in 1981 and that, in the best of all worlds, will kill, for every one person in the last 20, two in the next 20, or almost 45 million people. I cannot begin to say how important this is and how impressed I am that the President is taking bold action, demonstrating bold leadership, by making the United States of America a courier of medical care, of education, and thereby making the United States of America a courier for international hope, in the sense that it is addressing what is destroying a nation, a continent, and now spreading throughout the world. I also commend the President for his commitment to the protection of all Americans from this whole threat of bioterrorism. The threat is real and these biological agents are in the hands of our enemy. These agents are deadly. When you talk about anthrax and Ebola, which the President mentioned last night, and you talk about plague, you are talking about agents that are more powerful than nuclear weapons. These weapons of mass destruction--now in the hands of terrorists--are more powerful than nuclear weapons. A biological agent is a tiny microorganism that can be transported in a little vial in your pocket, unlike most nuclear weapons. They are cheap, they are easily transportable, and they are more deadly than nuclear weapons. My closing point is on this particular facet of weapons of mass destruction. We know our enemies--I speak now of Saddam Hussein and his henchmen--have in their possession quantities that serve no purpose but that of weapons of mass murder. Saddam Hussein, we know, is a serial killer. He has used chemical weapons--they are not biological weapons. There are chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Chemical weapons are similar to biological but a little bit different. Saddam Hussein has used chemical weapons and, in 1 day, killed 5,000 of his own people, and 10,000 people in addition to those who were injured, and tens of thousands between 1983 and 1988 were killed by these chemical weapons. We know he has these weapons; we know he harbors terrorists. Why in the world would a rational person believe he would hesitate to help others terrorize the United States or Europe or Asia or Israel, wherever anyone has an agenda of hate? Some question the wisdom of a preemptive attack against Saddam. It is akin to being against preventive health care, against these deadly microorganisms which are used as weapons of mass destruction, for which there is no cure. We have no cure or vaccine. The Ebola virus kills, and we have no vaccine right now. We have no treatment for the Ebola virus today. It was overlooked, but the President introduced a $6 billion program last night to best protect us from these biological agents, which we know other countries have developed in the past as offensive weapons of mass destruction. I look forward to Secretary Powell's presentation at the United Nations next week, as this President continues to use every diplomatic means to force Saddam Hussein to fulfill his responsibilities to the world community. I am proud this Congress voted overwhelmingly to endorse the ability of our President to do whatever is necessary to protect America, including force, if it is necessary, and we pray that it doesn't come to that. Our President has shown courage. He has shown clarity. He has shown focus in his efforts to rid the world of terrorists and others who are threats to freedom. I hope all of us in this body show the same courage, clarity, and focus. The health of our Nation depends on it. I yield the floor.

Mr. FRIST

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

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I understand we have the next 30 minutes on our side in morning business.

Mr. FRIST

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

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise today to draw attention to an alarming issue--the growing number of premature births. According to data released by the National Center for Health Statistics, the percentage of babies born prematurely--birth at less than 37 completed weeks of gestation--has risen to nearly 12 percent, the highest level ever reported in the United States. In 2001 alone, more than 476,000 babies were born prematurely in the U.S. Unfortunately, in my own State of Tennessee, 14 percent of births are preterm. There cannot be a clearer wake-up call for us. Today, the March of Dimes is launching a national, five-year prematurity awareness, education, and research effort aimed at preventing prematurity, the leading cause of infant death in the first month of life. I cannot imagine a better organization to take on this serious problem. Over its 63-year history, the March of Dimes has conducted two highly successful national campaigns--the first focused on preventing polio and the second involved educating the public and health providers on the role of folic acid in preventing neural tube defects. My friend, former Health and Human Services Secretary, Dr. Louis Sullivan, is the honorary chair of this campaign, and I salute him for his continued commitment to the public's health. I'm pleased to be able to salute and encourage this new campaign which holds the promise of significantly reducing the incidence of premature birth throughout the country. Babies born prematurely are more likely to face serious multiple health problems following delivery: a tragedy for families but one which may be preventable. Since coming to the Senate, I have focused on disparities in healthcare quality and access. Prematurity is one of the clearest indices of this problem. Rates of preterm birth vary significantly by race and ethnicity. In 2001, rates for black women were highest among all racial and ethnic subgroups--17.5 percent for black as compared to 11 percent for white Americans. We simply do not know why these numbers vary so dramatically. But without further research, our public policy options are limited. Our great health research institutions also have an important role. I have fought for the five-year doubling of NIH's budget. With this significant increase in funding, the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development and the National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities cab expand research in this area. I ask all of my colleagues to join me today in congratulating the March of Dimes on its launch of this new national campaign to target the rising rate of premature births.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a period for morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, each year, nearly one of every four Americans are injured and require medical attention. Among Americans younger than age 44, trauma is the leading killer. While injury prevention programs have greatly reduced death and disability, severe injuries will continue. Given the events of September 11, 2001 and our Nation's renewed focus on enhancing disaster preparedness, it is critical that the Federal Government increase its commitment to strengthening programs governing trauma care system planning and development. The direct and indirect cost of injury is estimated to be about $260 billion a year. The death rate from unintentional injury is more than 50 percent higher in rural areas than in urban areas. It is essential that all Americans have access to a trauma system that provides definitive care as quickly as possible. In recent years, Congress has sought to address this issue through the Trauma Care Systems Planning and Development Act, which provides grants for the purpose of planning, implementing, and developing statewide trauma care systems. However, this important program expired last year before Congress could reauthorize it. Therefore, I am introducing bipartisan legislation today, along with Senators Kennedy, Enzi, Murray, Roberts and Graham of South Carolina to reauthorize this important program. Despite our past investments, one-half of the states in the country are still without a statewide trauma care system. Clearly we can do better. We must respond to the goals put forth by the Institute of Medicine in 1999 that Congress ``support a greater national commitment to, and support of, trauma care systems at the federal, state, and local levels.'' Today's bill, the ``Trauma Care Systems Planning and Development Act of 2003'', reauthorizes this program with several improvements: First, it improves the collection and analysis of trauma patient data with the goal of improving the overall system of care for these patients; second, at this time of increasing pressure on state budgets, the bill reduces the amount of matching funds that states will have to provide to participate in the program so that we can extend quality trauma care systems across the nation; third, the legislation provides a self- evaluation mechanism to assist states in assessing and improving their trauma care systems; fourth, it authorizes an Institute of Medicine study on the state of trauma care and trauma research; and; finally, it doubles the funding available for this program to allow additional states to participate. I appreciate the assistance of Senators Kennedy, Enzi, Murray, Roberts and Graham of South Carolina on this important legislation, and look forward to working with them, and with Senator Gregg, the Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, to see this bill passed this year.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, each year, nearly one of every four Americans are injured and require medical attention. Among Americans younger than age 44, trauma is the leading killer. While injury prevention programs have greatly reduced death and disability, severe injuries will continue. Given the events of September 11, 2001 and our Nation's renewed focus on enhancing disaster preparedness, it is critical that the Federal Government increase its commitment to strengthening programs governing trauma care system planning and development. The direct and indirect cost of injury is estimated to be about $260 billion a year. The death rate from unintentional injury is more than 50 percent higher in rural areas than in urban areas. It is essential that all Americans have access to a trauma system that provides definitive care as quickly as possible. In recent years, Congress has sought to address this issue through the Trauma Care Systems Planning and Development Act, which provides grants for the purpose of planning, implementing, and developing statewide trauma care systems. However, this important program expired last year before Congress could reauthorize it. Therefore, I am introducing bipartisan legislation today, along with Senators Kennedy, Enzi, Murray, Roberts and Graham of South Carolina to reauthorize this important program. Despite our past investments, one-half of the states in the country are still without a statewide trauma care system. Clearly we can do better. We must respond to the goals put forth by the Institute of Medicine in 1999 that Congress ``support a greater national commitment to, and support of, trauma care systems at the federal, state, and local levels.'' Today's bill, the ``Trauma Care Systems Planning and Development Act of 2003'', reauthorizes this program with several improvements: First, it improves the collection and analysis of trauma patient data with the goal of improving the overall system of care for these patients; second, at this time of increasing pressure on state budgets, the bill reduces the amount of matching funds that states will have to provide to participate in the program so that we can extend quality trauma care systems across the nation; third, the legislation provides a self- evaluation mechanism to assist states in assessing and improving their trauma care systems; fourth, it authorizes an Institute of Medicine study on the state of trauma care and trauma research; and; finally, it doubles the funding available for this program to allow additional states to participate. I appreciate the assistance of Senators Kennedy, Enzi, Murray, Roberts and Graham of South Carolina on this important legislation, and look forward to working with them, and with Senator Gregg, the Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, to see this bill passed this year.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session, the following nominations then be discharged from the HELP Committee, and the Senate proceed en bloc to their consideration: PN-66, Edwin Rigaud to be member of National Museum Services Board; PN-64, Elizabeth Pruet to be member of National Museum Services Board; PN-63, Harry Robinson to be member of National Museum Services Board; PN-84, Dana Gioia to be Chairperson of the National Endowment For the Arts. I further ask unanimous consent that all of the mentioned nominations be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, that any statements relating to the nominations appear at this point in the Record, and the Senate then resume legislative session, with all of the above occurring en bloc.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that on Thursday, at a time determined by the majority leader, with the concurrence of the Democratic leader, the Senate proceed to executive session and that the nomination of Gordon England, to be Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security, be discharged from the Governmental Affairs Committee; further, that the Senate then proceed to its consideration; that there be 20 minutes of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member; provided further, that following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to a vote on the nomination, with no intervening action or debate; that following the vote, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a business meeting regarding Committee Rules. The meeting will be held in SD 406.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, January 29, 2003, at 10 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a business meeting to organize for the 108th Congress by electing the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the committee and to adopt the rules of the committee and any other organizational business the committee needs to attend to.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a Judicial Nominations hearing on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 in Dirksen Room 226 at 9:30 am. Tentative Agenda Panel I: The Honorable Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senator (D-CA); the Honorable Mike DeWine, U.S. Senator (R-OH); the Honorable John Cornyn, U.S. Senator (R-TX); the Honorable John Warner, U.S. Senator (R-VA); the Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison, U.S. Senator (R-TX); the Honorable George Voinovich, U.S. Senator (R-OH). Panel II: Deborah Cook to be U.S. Court of Appeals Judge for the Sixth Circuit; John Roberts to be U.S. Court of Appeals Judge for the D.C. Circuit; and Jeffrey Sutton to be U.S. Court of Appeals Judge for the Sixth Circuit. Panel III: John Adams to be U.S. District Court Judge for the Northern District of Ohio; Robert Junell to be U.S. District Court Judge for the Western District of Texas; S. James Otero to be U.S. District Court Judge for the Central District of California. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Committee on Natural Resources

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on Wednesday, January 29 at 9:30 a.m. to consider pending calendar business.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a business meeting.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space of the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, January 29, 2003, at 2:30 p.m. on the science and ethics of human cloning.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 25, and that the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.